Sirvontae Renee Stevenson v. David Baughman, 2:13-cv-00643

Petitioner Sirvontae Stevenson filed a federal habeas petition and sought a stay to exhaust additional state habeas claims and sought leave to file a Second Amended Petition.
The Magistrate Judge issued an R&R recommending denial of a Rhines stay (for lack of good cause) but granting a Kelly stay; the R&R also addressed Petitioner’s motions to amend and administrative requests.
Petitioner invoked the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Dixon v. Baker, arguing that lack of counsel in initial state habeas proceedings satisfies the Rhines "good cause" requirement. Respondent acknowledged Dixon but argued claims may be plainly meritless.
The district court found Petitioner's proposed claims are evolving and intertwined with detailed mental-health allegations and an equitable-tolling argument; expert evaluations and state habeas presentation remain incomplete.
Because the plausibility (non-plainly-meritless) element of Rhines cannot be assessed while claims are still being developed and not yet exhausted in state court, the court denied a Rhines stay without prejudice but accepted the R&R’s grant of a Kelly stay; the motion to amend was denied as premature.
The court ordered bi-monthly status reports from counsel, required counsel to move to amend within 20 days after exhausting state remedies, and granted several unopposed ex parte sealing requests.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Stevenson is entitled to a Rhines stay	Dixon means lack of counsel in state habeas satisfies Rhines "good cause" so a Rhines stay should be granted	Even if Dixon supplies good cause, a stay may be denied if unexhausted claims are plainly meritless	Rhines stay denied without prejudice because claim plausibility cannot now be determined while claims are developing and unexhausted
Whether Dixon compels a Rhines stay here	Dixon allows easy showing of good cause for pro se/unrepresented state habeas petitioners	Dixon does not remove the separate requirement that unexhausted claims not be plainly meritless	Court acknowledges Dixon but finds it does not compel an immediate Rhines stay where claim merits are not yet assessable
Whether a Kelly stay is appropriate	Kelly stay will allow tolling while state exhaustion occurs	Respondent reserved statute-of-limitations waiver until state petition is filed	Court granted a Kelly stay as recommended by the R&R
Motion to Amend the federal petition	Petitioner seeks leave to file a Second Amended Petition now	Respondent opposes as premature	Motion to amend denied as premature; petitioner must move to amend within 20 days after state exhaustion

Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005) (sets standard for federal stay to allow exhaustion of unexhausted habeas claims under certain conditions)
Dixon v. Baker, 847 F.3d 714 (9th Cir. 2017) (recognizes that lack of counsel in state postconviction proceedings can satisfy Rhines' "good cause" element)
Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2003) (authorizes stay-and-abeyance procedure allowing filing in federal court while state exhaustion proceeds)