1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 ROBERT C. HOHMANN, Case No. 24-cv-03597-RMI

7 Petitioner,

ORDER TO STAY PROCEEDINGS

8 v. AND ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE

THE CASE

9 ROB ST. ANDRE, Re: Dkt. No. 16 Respondent. 10

11 12 Petitioner, a California prisoner, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant 13 to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The amended petition was dismissed with leave to amend, and Petitioner has 14 filed a motion for a stay. (dkt. 16). 15 BACKGROUND 16 Petitioner pled no contest to sexually abusing his stepdaughter. People v. Hohmann, No. 17 A167916, 2023 WL 8868067, at *1 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 22, 2023). He was sentenced to 20 years 18 in prison. Id. The California Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, and the California Supreme 19 Court denied a petition for review. (Id.; dkt. 13 at 3). Petitioner indicates that he filed no other 20 challenges to this conviction. (dkt. 13 at 3). 21 DISCUSSION 22 Standard of Review 23 This court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person in 24 custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in 25 violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Rose v. 26 Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). Habeas corpus petitions must meet heightened pleading 27 requirements. McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994). An application for a federal writ of 1 must “specify all the grounds for relief available to the petitioner . . . [and] state the facts 2 supporting each ground.” Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases; 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. 3 “[N]otice pleading is not sufficient, for the petition is expected to state facts that point to a real 4 possibility of constitutional error.” Rule 4 Advisory Committee Notes (quoting Aubut v. Maine, 5 431 F.2d 688, 689 (1st Cir. 1970) (internal quotation marks omitted)). 6 Legal Claims 7 In the amended petition, Petitioner alleged that due to a depressive disorder and other 8 mental health issues, he could not understand the implications of accepting the plea and counsel 9 was ineffective for not understanding his mental state. 10 The Court noted that there was no indication that this claim was exhausted. There was no 11 claim in Petitioner’s direct appeal regarding counsel being ineffective due to Petitioner’s mental 12 health which resulted in not understanding the plea. See Hohmann, 2023 WL 8868067, at *1-4. 13 Petitioner stated that he did not file any other challenges to the conviction. (dkt. 13 at 3). The 14 amended petition was dismissed leave to amend to demonstrate exhaustion or to file a motion for a 15 stay. 16 Petitioner has filed a motion for a stay arguing that he was unable to exhaust the claim 17 earlier due to evidence not being available until now. (dkt. 16 at 1). Liberally construing his 18 motion, Petitioner meets the requirement for a stay pursuant to Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 19 (2005), and his motion for a stay is granted. Petitioner has shown good cause for his failure to 20 have first exhausted the claim, the claim potentially has merit, and there is no indication that 21 Petitioner was intentionally dilatory in pursuing this litigation. 22 CONCLUSION 23 Petitioner’s motion for a stay (dkt. 16) is GRANTED and this case is STAYED pending 24 exhaustion of his claim with the California Supreme Court. If Petitioner is not granted relief in 25 state court, he may return to this Court and ask that the stay be lifted. He must also specifically set 26 forth the exhausted claims in a second amended petition. 27 The stay is subject to the following conditions: 1 (2) Petitioner must notify this Court within thirty days after the state courts have completed 2 || their review of his claims or after they have refused review of his claims. ! 3 If either condition of the stay is not satisfied, this Court may vacate the stay and act on this 4 || petition. See Rhines, 544 U.S. at 278 (district court must effectuate timeliness concerns of AEDPA 5 || by placing “reasonable limits on a petitioner’s trip to state court and back.”). 6 The Clerk shall ADMINSTRATIVELY CLOSE this case. The closure has no legal 7 effect; it is purely a statistical matter. The case will be reopened, and the stay vacated upon 8 || notification by Petitioner in accordance with the instructions above. 9 Petitioner must keep the Court informed of any change of address and must comply with 10 || the Court’s orders in a timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for 11 failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 12 IT IS SO ORDERED.

13 || Dated: February 10, 2025

15 2 R@BERT M. ILLMAN a 16 United States Magistrate Judge

= 17

Z 18

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ' Petitioner is cautioned that the habeas corpus statute imposes a one-year statute of limitations for 26 4: . wes . filing non-capital habeas corpus petitions in federal court. In most cases, the one-year period will 07 start to run on the date on which the state court judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of time for seeking direct review, although the statute of limitations is 28 tolled while a properly filed application for state post-conviction or other collateral review is pending. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).