Padilla v. Davies
- Donna Ryu
- 4:17-cv-05007
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Ronnie Padilla v. Ken Clark, Judge Ryu denied lifting the stay and appointing counsel, continued the stay for exhaustion, and required status reports.
Ronnie Padilla’s federal habeas case remains stayed while he pursues exhaustion of his claims in the California state courts. He must file periodic status reports, and his request for appointed counsel was denied.
What happened
In Ronnie Padilla v. Ken Clark, Ronnie Padilla, a state prisoner representing himself, asked the federal court to lift a stay in his petition under federal habeas law. The court had stayed the case so he could present claims that he had not yet taken through the California state courts.
The court denied Padilla’s request to lift the stay because he had presented those claims only to a state superior court, not to the state appellate or supreme courts. It also denied his request for appointed counsel, continued the stay, and required him to pursue state-court review and submit reports about his progress.
Judge Donna M. Ryu ordered Padilla to file reports every 28 days, beginning 28 days after the order, with copies of documents related to his state-court claims. The case will remain administratively closed until he receives a final decision from the highest state court and seeks to reopen it.
The detailed version
- Padilla v. Davies · No. 4:17-cv-05007
- Donna Ryu
- Mar. 9, 2021
Background
Ronnie Padilla, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He told the court that the petition included one exhausted claim and other claims that had not been presented to the California state courts. The court previously granted his request to stay the federal proceedings while he pursued state-court exhaustion.
The earlier stay order directed Padilla to obtain a final decision from the highest state court and then, within 28 days, ask to reopen the case, lift the stay, and amend the petition to add the newly exhausted claims. Padilla later filed a motion titled “Motion to Move This Case Forward.” The court treated that filing as a request to lift the stay. He also asked the court to appoint a lawyer.
Exhaustion and continued stay
The court found that Padilla had presented his unexhausted claims only to the state superior court. He had not presented them to either the state appellate courts or the state supreme court. Because his available state-court remedies had not been exhausted, the court denied the motion to lift the stay.
The court ordered the stay to continue while Padilla pursues exhaustion of his state-court remedies. It warned that he must act diligently or the stay may be lifted. The matter is to remain administratively closed while the stay is in effect.
Request for appointed counsel
The court explained that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not apply in habeas proceedings. It also explained that federal law allows a court to appoint counsel for a habeas petitioner when the interests of justice require it and the petitioner cannot afford representation. The court found that appointing counsel was not necessary at that time and denied Padilla’s request.
Required reports and disposition
Padilla must file reports describing the progress of his state-court proceedings every 28 days, beginning 28 days after the order, until those proceedings are completed. He must attach copies of the cover page of documents he files with or receives from the state courts concerning the claims. After receiving a final decision from the highest state court, he must move within 28 days to reopen the case, lift the stay, and amend the stayed petition. The order terminated Docket No. 17. The court denied the motion to lift the stay, denied the request for appointment of counsel, and continued the stay.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.