Rios v. Frauenheim

Background

Ulysses Alexander Rios, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition for federal review of his state conviction under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The respondent, Scott Frauenheim, Warden, filed an answer on June 15, 2020. After receiving a second extension, Rios’s deadline to file a traverse—a written response to the answer—was February 11, 2021.

On February 8, 2021, Rios moved for a stay and pause of the case, citing pandemic-related restrictions on access to the law library. He said those restrictions made it impossible to file a proper traverse. He relied on the stay procedure discussed in Rhines v. Weber.

Ruling

The court denied Rios’s motion for an indefinite stay. It explained that a stay under the rule discussed in Rhines is appropriate when a petitioner shows good cause to return to state court to exhaust potentially meritorious claims that were not previously exhausted. The court concluded that this procedure did not apply to Rios’s request for additional time to prepare his traverse. The court also noted that, despite the pandemic’s challenges, other prisoners representing themselves had continued filing actions.

In the interest of justice, the court granted Rios a third extension of time to file his traverse. It ordered him to file the traverse no later than 56 days from the date of the order. The court said Rios could continue to request additional time as needed, but he had to make a good-faith effort to pursue the case diligently. The order terminated Docket No. 51.

Classification and effect

This is a procedural order because it decided an ancillary request for a stay and an extension of time rather than the merits of Rios’s challenge to his conviction. The stay was denied, and the third extension was granted. The order does not state that the habeas petition itself was dismissed or decided.