JOSE GRIMALDI V. K. HOLLAND, No. 14-56888 (9th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED OCT 03 2016 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOSE GRIMALDI, No. Petitioner-Appellant, 14-56888 D.C. No. 2:14-cv-03729-JVS v. MEMORANDUM* K. HOLLAND, Respondent-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California James V. Selna, District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 27, 2016** Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges. California state prisoner Jose Grimaldi appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to exhaust, see * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Rhoades v. Henry, 638 F.3d 1027, 1034 (9th Cir. 2010), and we vacate and remand. Grimaldi contends that the district court erred in dismissing his habeas petition as unexhausted because it had discretion to stay the proceedings. After the district court dismissed Grimaldi’s petition, this court held in Mena v. Long, 813 F.3d 907, 912 (9th Cir. 2016), that “a district court has the discretion to stay and hold in abeyance fully unexhausted petitions under the circumstances set forth in Rhines [v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005)].” We, therefore, vacate and remand for the district court to determine in the first instance whether Grimaldi is entitled to a stay and for any further proceedings. We express no opinion as to the merits of Grimaldi’s claims, or whether the procedural requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) are satisfied or Grimaldi is entitled to equitable tolling. All pending motions are denied as moot. VACATED and REMANDED. 2 14-56888

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.