Fred Jay Jackson v. Ernest C. Roe, Warden

Bad Law
425 F.3d 654·2005 WL 2319679·2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 20632
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitSeptember 23, 200502-56210California4,276 words

Opinion

Opinion

Berzon, J.

Fred Jackson filed a “mixed” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. The district court refused to stay proceedings so that he could exhaust the unexhausted claim, which was at that time pending before the California Supreme Court. Rhines v. Weber, — U.S. - — -, 125 S.Ct. 1528 , 161 L.Ed.2d 440 (2005), however, holds that a federal court must, in limited circumstances, stay a mixed petition to allow a petitioner to present an unexhaust-ed claim to a state court for review. Id. at 1535. Under Rhines , a district court’s decision to grant or deny a stay is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Id. Because the district court in this case failed to apply the standards regarding staying a mixed habeas petition enunciated in Rhines— quite understandably, as Jackson’s petition was dismissed almost three years prior to the decision in Rhines — we vacate and remand to allow the district court the opportunity to do so.

I.

Appellant was convicted in 1997 in California state court of two counts of attempted first degree murder and two counts of second degree robbery, and sentenced to a term of 126 years to life in prison. He unsuccessfully appealed his conviction to the California…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.