Ruoff v. Covello
- Jon Tigar
- 4:22-cv-01207
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Ruoff v. Covello, Judge Tigar granted a stay while Ruoff exhausts his remaining claims in state court.
Joshua Richard Ruoff’s federal habeas case is stayed while he pursues state-court exhaustion of his unexhausted claims; Patrick Covello and the other respondents are affected by the pause in federal proceedings.
What happened
In Ruoff v. Covello, Joshua Richard Ruoff asked the federal court to pause his habeas case while he completed state-court review of six claims that he had not yet exhausted. His petition also included two exhausted claims.
The court found that Ruoff had good reason for the delay, including his lack of counsel before August 2021, bipolar disorder, and the complexity of his claims. The court also found that his unexhausted claims were not clearly meritless and that nothing showed he had intentionally delayed the case.
Judge Jon S. Tigar granted Ruoff’s motion for a Rhines stay and stayed the case while he pursues exhaustion in state court. The court did not decide whether a different type of stay was warranted and did not rule on the habeas petition’s claims.
The detailed version
- Ruoff v. Covello · No. 4:22-cv-01207
- Jon Tigar
- June 14, 2022
Background
A jury found Ruoff guilty of first-degree murder and use of a deadly weapon on June 29, 2018, and he received a sentence of 26 years to life. The California Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment and sentence, and the California Supreme Court denied review.
Ruoff then filed a federal petition for a writ of habeas corpus, asking the federal court to review his state-court conviction. The petition contained two exhausted claims and six unexhausted claims. Ruoff moved for a stay under Rhines v. Weber so he could complete exhaustion of the unexhausted claims in state court. In the alternative, he requested a stay under the procedure described in Kelly v. Small. Respondent Patrick Covello did not oppose a Kelly stay but opposed a Rhines stay without offering substantive argument against it.
Court’s Analysis
A Rhines stay is available when the petitioner shows good cause for failing to exhaust the claims earlier, the unexhausted claims are potentially meritorious, and the petitioner did not intentionally use delay tactics.
The court found good cause because Ruoff had no counsel before August 2021 and because his bipolar disorder hindered his ability to identify and develop complex claims. The court also found that Ruoff’s detailed allegations, supporting exhibits, and cited legal authority showed that the unexhausted claims were not “plainly meritless.” Finally, the court found no evidence of intentional delay; Ruoff attributed the delay to his mental illness, lack of counsel, and the complexity of his new claims.
Disposition
The court granted Ruoff’s motion for a Rhines stay and stayed the action while he exhausts his unexhausted claims in state court. Because it granted a Rhines stay, the court did not decide whether a Kelly stay was warranted.
If Ruoff does not obtain relief in state court, he may return to the federal court and ask to lift the stay. The order requires him to notify the court within 30 days after the California Supreme Court completes its review of his claims. After he reports that the claims have been exhausted, the stay will be lifted, the case will be reopened, and further proceedings will be scheduled. If he takes no further action, the case will remain stayed and the court will not rule on his petition. The clerk administratively closed the file during the stay, which the order states has no legal effect and is only a statistical procedure.
Judge Jon S. Tigar issued the order on June 14, 2022.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.