Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Angel Eliezer Padilla Vargas, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his 2024 conviction in California state court. In his petition, he admitted that his claims had never been presented to the California Supreme Court, explaining that his attorney had refused to file a petition for case review. He asked the federal court to let him file a petition for case review or a writ for federal habeas corpus, but he did not indicate that he was actually trying to exhaust his claims through a state habeas petition.
Because some or all of the claims appeared subject to dismissal for lack of exhaustion, the court declined to make a final dismissal decision right away. Instead, it gave the petitioner an opportunity to supplement a request for a stay or to file an amended petition. The court noted that it was unclear what claims the petitioner actually intended to bring, beyond perhaps an ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim, even though he had attached the state appellate decision affirming his conviction.
The Court’s Holding
The court explained that a state prisoner must exhaust state court remedies before a federal court may grant habeas relief, which for a California prisoner generally means fairly presenting the claims to the California Supreme Court through one complete round of the state's appellate process. Because the petitioner conceded he had not done so, the court construed his request to proceed anyway as a request for a stay. It then described the two available stay procedures: a Rhines stay, which requires good cause for the failure to exhaust, claims that are not plainly meritless, and no dilatory tactics; and a Kelly stay, which does not require good cause but requires the petitioner to amend away unexhausted claims and comply with the AEDPA one-year statute of limitations.
The court concluded it could not determine whether each unexhausted claim was not plainly meritless, as a Rhines stay requires, because it could not discern what claims the petitioner was attempting to bring. It therefore ordered the petitioner to respond to an order to show cause by November 24, 2026, either by requesting a Rhines stay with a supplemental brief explaining the claims and why a stay is appropriate, or by filing a First Amended Petition detailing his claims and demonstrating entitlement to a stay. The court warned that if the petitioner failed to respond or failed to show entitlement to a stay, it might recommend that the petition be dismissed.
Key Takeaways
- A federal habeas petitioner who admits his claims were never presented to the California Supreme Court faces dismissal unless he can justify a stay or amend his petition.
- A Rhines stay requires good cause for failing to exhaust, claims that are not plainly meritless, and no intentional delay, while a Kelly stay requires amending away unexhausted claims and complying with the AEDPA one-year limitations period.
- The court could not evaluate whether the petitioner's claims were plainly meritless because the petition did not clearly identify what claims he intended to pursue.
- The petitioner was ordered to respond by November 24, 2026, by either requesting a Rhines stay with supporting explanation or filing a First Amended Petition, or risk a recommendation that the petition be dismissed.
- Pro se petitioners must still satisfy the exhaustion requirement, and attaching a state appellate decision does not substitute for fairly presenting claims to the state's highest court.
Why It Matters
This order illustrates how federal courts in the Ninth Circuit handle habeas petitions that are plainly unexhausted but filed by pro se prisoners who may not understand the exhaustion requirement. Rather than dismissing outright, the court gave the petitioner a structured opportunity to choose between the Rhines and Kelly stay procedures, reflecting the flexibility district courts have under Ninth Circuit precedent.
The decision also underscores a practical hurdle for pro se petitioners: a court cannot grant a Rhines stay without knowing what the claims are, since it must assess whether they are plainly meritless. The order serves as a reminder that vague or incomplete petitions may stall even before the merits are reached, and that the AEDPA statute of limitations continues to constrain a petitioner's options for adding claims later.