Mitchell v. Valenzuela, No. 12-55041 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Petitioner, convicted of first degree murder, appealed the denial of his motion to stay and abey his 28 U.S.C. 2254 habeas corpus petition while he exhausted some of his claims in state court. The court held that, in the context of a section 2254 habeas petition, this type of motion is generally (but not always) dispositive as to the unexhausted claims. When it is
dispositive, a magistrate judge is without authority to “hear and determine” such a motion, but rather must submit a report and recommendation to the district court. Accordingly, the court vacated the district court's dismissal of the habeas corpus petition and remanded for further proceedings.
Court Description: Habeas Corpus. Vacating the district court’s judgment dismissing a habeas corpus petition and remanding, the panel held that a motion to stay and abey a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition to permit exhaustion of some of the petitioner’s claims in state court is generally (but not always) dispositive as to the unexhausted claims, and that a magistrate judge therefore generally cannot hear and determine such a motion, but rather must submit a report and recommendation to the district court. The panel held that the magistrate judge’s order in this case was effectively dispositive of the unexhausted claims and, therefore, beyond his authority.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.