Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 28, 2021

Guerrero v. Matterson

Judge
William Orrick
Docket
3:20-cv-05923
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
HabeasCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Guerrero v. Matterson, Judge Orrick granted Guerrero’s request to pause the federal custody challenge while he pursues unexhausted claims in state court.

Who this affects

Richard Orestes Guerrero must pursue his unexhausted claims in the California Supreme Court and meet the stated deadlines before seeking to reopen the federal action; G. Matterson remains the respondent in the stayed case.

What happened

In Guerrero v. Matterson, Richard Orestes Guerrero asked the court to pause his federal challenge while he presents claims that had not yet been pursued in state court. The order does not decide whether those claims have merit.

The court granted the request and stayed the case. Guerrero must file his unexhausted claims in the California Supreme Court within 180 days of the order. Within 60 days after that court issues a decision, he must ask this court to end the stay and reopen the federal case.

The order also requires any motion to reopen to include a complete amended petition listing every claim Guerrero wishes to pursue. The court administratively closed the file and terminated pending motions while the stay remains in place. Judge William H. Orrick signed the order.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Guerrero v. Matterson · No. 3:20-cv-05923
Judge
William Orrick
Date
Jan. 28, 2021

Background

Petitioner Richard Orestes Guerrero moved to stay, or pause, his federal habeas proceedings so he could exhaust claims in state court. Exhaustion generally means presenting the claims to the state courts before asking a federal court to review them. The opinion states that the motion concerned Guerrero’s unexhausted claims.

Ruling

The court granted Guerrero’s motion and stayed the federal habeas action under Rhines v. Webber. The court did not decide the merits of the claims. Nothing further will occur in the case until the court determines that further action is appropriate or Guerrero satisfies the conditions for dissolving the stay.

Guerrero must file a petition containing his unexhausted claims in the California Supreme Court within 180 days from January 28, 2021. Within 60 days after receiving a decision from the state supreme court on those claims, he must file a motion in this court to dissolve the stay and reopen the federal proceedings.

Requirements for Reopening

Any motion to reopen must include an amended petition on the court’s form. The amended petition must use the caption and civil case number in the order and include the words “FIRST AMENDED PETITION” on its first page. Because the amended petition replaces the earlier petitions, it must include all claims Guerrero wants to present. The order states that any unexhausted claims will be summarily dismissed.

The clerk was directed to terminate all pending motions and administratively close the file while the action is stayed.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.