1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 GREGORY COOPER, Case No. 24-cv-04343-RMI

8 Petitioner, ORDER TO STAY PROCEEDINGS 9 v. AND ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE THE CASE 10 STATE, Re: Dkt. No. 9 Respondent. 11

12 13 Petitioner, a California prisoner, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant 14 to

. The original petition was dismissed with leave to amend, and Petition has 15 filed a motion for a stay. (dkt. 9). 16 BACKGROUND 17 In 2002, Petitioner was convicted by a jury of murder and being a felon in possession of a 18 firearm. Copper v. Mayfi, Case No. 06-4872 MJJ. A prior habeas petition was denied on the 19 merits. (Id.; dkt. 15). Petitioner was resentenced on September 5, 2023. (dkt. 1 at 3). He appealed 20 the resentencing. (dkt. 1 at 7). Petitioner also sought permission from the Ninth Circuit to file a 21 successive petition. (dkt. 5). The Ninth Circuit transferred the petition to this Court, because 22 Petitioner does not need permission to challenge the amended judgment from the resentencing. 23 (Id.) 24 DISCUSSION 25 Standard of Review 26 This court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person in 27 custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in 1 Hodges,

(1975). Habeas corpus petitions must meet heightened pleading 2 requirements. McFarland v. Scott,

(1994). An application for a federal writ of 3 habeas corpus filed by a prisoner, who is in state custody pursuant to a judgment of a state court, 4 must “specify all the grounds for relief available to the petitioner . . . [and] state the facts 5 supporting each ground.” Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases; 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. 6 “[N]otice pleading is not sufficient, for the petition is expected to state facts that point to a real 7 possibility of constitutional error.” Rule 4 Advisory Committee Notes (quoting Aubut v. Maine, 8

(1st Cir. 1970) (internal quotation marks omitted)). 9 Legal Claims 10 Petitioner alleged that the trial court erred in his resentencing. He stated that he appealed 11 the resentencing but did not indicate what courts reviewed his appeal. A review of court records 12 did not reflect that Petitioner filed any appeal or habeas petition with the California Supreme 13 Court. The petition was dismissed leave to amend to demonstrate exhaustion or to file a motion for 14 a stay. 15 Petitioner has filed a motion for a stay arguing that he sent the petition to the wrong court 16 due to mental health issues and requires a stay to properly exhaust his claims in state court. 17 Liberally construing his motion, Petitioner meets the requirement for a stay pursuant to Rhines v. 18 Weber,

(2005), and his motion for a stay is granted. Petitioner has shown good cause 19 for his failure to have first exhausted the claims, the claims potentially have merit, and there is no 20 indication that Petitioner was intentionally dilatory in pursuing this litigation. 21 CONCLUSION 22 Petitioner’s motion for a stay (dkt. 9) is GRANTED and this case is STAYED pending 23 exhaustion of his claims with the California Supreme Court. If Petitioner is not granted relief in 24 state court, he may return to this Court and ask that the stay be lifted. He must also specifically set 25 forth the exhausted claims in an amended petition. 26 The stay is subject to the following conditions: 27 (1) Petitioner must diligently pursue his state court habeas proceedings; and 1 their review of his claims or after they have refused review of his claims. 2 If either condition of the stay is not satisfied, this Court may vacate the stay and act on this 3 petition. See Rhines,

(district court must effectuate timeliness concerns of AEDPA 4 || by placing “reasonable limits on a petitioner’s trip to state court and back.”). 5 The Clerk shall ADMINSTRATIVELY CLOSE this case. The closure has no legal 6 || effect; itis purely a statistical matter. The case will be reopened, and the stay vacated upon 7 || notification by Petitioner in accordance with the instructions above. 8 Petitioner must keep the Court informed of any change of address and must comply with 9 || the Court’s orders in a timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for 10 || failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. e 12 Dated: October 21, 2024

RQBERT M. ILLMAN IS United States Magistrate Judge 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28