Nelson v. Robertson

Background

William Lloyd Nelson filed this self-represented action under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, asking the federal court to review his conviction for attempted murder of a peace officer. The court dismissed his original 375-page petition but allowed him to amend it. Nelson filed an amended petition, and the court ordered Robertson to respond after screening it.

Robertson moved to dismiss the amended petition, arguing that it included claims Nelson had not yet exhausted in state court. The court granted that dismissal motion in part and denied it in part, then directed Nelson to choose how to proceed with the unexhausted claims. Nelson moved for a stay so he could pursue those claims in state court before, if necessary, presenting them in his federal case. Robertson opposed the stay.

Legal Standard

The court applied the stay procedure described in Rhines v. Weber. A stay is appropriate when the petitioner shows good cause for failing to exhaust the claims earlier, the claims are not meritless, and the petitioner is not intentionally using delay tactics.

Ruling

The court found that Nelson met those requirements when his motion was read liberally. At least some claims in his amended petition were not plainly meritless, and his active litigation of the case suggested that the delay was unintentional. The court also treated Nelson’s assertion that he had newly discovered evidence—evidence not previously presented to a California court—as supporting good cause.

Judge Edward M. Chen granted Nelson’s motion for a stay. The action was stayed and administratively closed, meaning that no further proceedings would occur until Nelson exhausted his unexhausted claims in state court. The order cautioned Nelson to act diligently and to move to reopen the federal case, lift the stay, and proceed with his petition within 30 days after the state proceedings concluded. The order did not decide the merits of Nelson’s conviction challenge.