Pablo Bastidas v. Kevin Chappell
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 11314
| 9th Cir. | 2015Background
- Pablo Bastidas was convicted in California and sentenced to 55 years; after state remedies failed he filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
- His petition included four claims; Bastidas conceded two claims had not been presented to the California Supreme Court.
- After counsel withdrew, Bastidas filed a pro se motion to stay and abey to exhaust an additional new claim (not yet in the federal petition) in state court so he could later amend it into the petition.
- The magistrate judge denied the stay as time‑barred (denying equitable tolling and relation‑back) and as lacking good cause, and later granted Bastidas’s pro se request to withdraw two unexhausted claims from his petition.
- The magistrate issued a report and recommendation on the remaining claims; the district court adopted it and dismissed the petition with prejudice. Bastidas appealed, challenging the magistrate judge’s authority to decide the stay motion and to dismiss the two claims.
Issues
| Issue | Bastidas’s Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a magistrate judge may hear and decide a motion to stay and abey to exhaust a claim that is not yet in the federal petition | Magistrate lacked authority because denial of the stay would effectively dispose of the new claim (dispositive) and thus required a report and recommendation to the district court | Magistrate may decide stay motions as nondispositive; stay to exhaust a claim not yet in the petition is like a nondispositive motion to amend | The magistrate’s denial of the stay was dispositive of the new unexhausted claim; magistrate lacked authority to finally decide it and should have submitted a report and recommendation to the district court (vacated and remanded) |
| Whether Bastidas forfeited appellate review by not objecting to the magistrate’s characterization of the stay as nondispositive | Bastidas did not forfeit because the question implicates structural Article III limits and he received no clear notice how to seek district‑court review of that threshold determination | State argued failure to object forfeits review under ordinary magistrate‑order forfeiture rules | Court held forfeiture inapplicable here and exercised discretion to review the issue because it is a pure question of law and the record is developed |
| Whether the magistrate’s order granting Bastidas’s notice of withdrawal (dismissing two unexhausted claims without prejudice) was dispositive | Bastidas argued magistrate exceeded authority or that earlier unauthorized actions coerced withdrawal | State argued magistrate actions were permissible housekeeping; any withdrawal was Bastidas’s choice | Court held dismissal of the two claims at Bastidas’s request was nondispositive housekeeping and within magistrate’s authority |
| Whether the magistrate’s denial as moot of the state’s motion for leave to file a dismissal motion and striking the proposed motion was dispositive | Bastidas certified question but did not press it on appeal | State treated those as routine docketing/housekeeping matters | Court held these were nondispositive housekeeping acts and permissible by the magistrate |
Key Cases Cited
- Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005) (courts may stay mixed §2254 petitions in limited circumstances to allow state exhaustion)
- Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (1982) (mixed habeas petitions must ordinarily be dismissed to allow exhaustion)
- Mitchell v. Valenzuela, No. 12-55041 (9th Cir.) (discussed as controlling Ninth Circuit treatment of stay motions) (treated in opinion as precedent though not in official reporter)
- CMKM Diamonds, Inc. v. Underwood, 729 F.3d 1248 (9th Cir. 2013) (treats when stay motions are nondispositive in civil litigation)
- Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2003) (stay mechanism discussed for exhaustion issues; limited by later decisions)
- Nguyen v. United States, 539 U.S. 69 (2003) (courts may correct unauthorized acts of judicial officers on appeal despite lack of objection)
- Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985) (standards for appellate review of magistrate reports and recommendations)
- Bullard v. Blue Hills Bank, 135 S. Ct. 1686 (2015) (explains that finality and dispositive effect can differ depending on a decision’s practical consequences)
- Miranda v. Anchondo, 684 F.3d 844 (9th Cir. 2012) (failure to object to magistrate factual findings waives review but legal issues may be treated differently)