Capps v. Hill

Capps v. Hill · United States District Court for the Eastern District of California · October 16, 2025 · No. 2:25-cv-1047 WBS AC P

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California denies petitioner David Capps’s motion to stay his habeas action under Kelly v. Small or, alternatively, Rhines v. Weber. The court finds a stay unnecessary because respondent represented that the claims petitioner sought to exhaust had already been exhausted, and petitioner did not rebut that position or provide another basis for a stay.

Court
United States District Court for the Eastern District of California
Writing for the Court
Allison Claire
Jurisdiction
United States District Court for the Eastern District of California
Decision date
October 16, 2025
Docket number
2:25-cv-1047 WBS AC P
Procedural posture
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding through counsel in a federal habeas action, moved to stay the action under Kelly v. Small or, alternatively, Rhines v. Weber, pending exhaustion of Claims One through Three in state court.
Precedential value
Unpublished district court order with limited precedential value.
Parties
David Capps v. James Hill
Disposition
other

Topics

federal habeas corpuspost-conviction reliefcivil procedure

Practice areas

Federal habeas corpusPost-conviction relief

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the federal habeas action should be stayed under Kelly v. Small or Rhines v. Weber pending exhaustion of Claims One through Three in state court.

Holdings

  1. The motion to stay was denied as unnecessary because respondent affirmatively represented that the claims petitioner sought to exhaust were already exhausted, and petitioner did not rebut that representation or identify another basis for a stay.

Key quotations

In light of respondent’s affirmative position that the claims petitioner seeks to return to state court to exhaust are already exhausted, and petitioner’s failure to rebut that statement or offer any other grounds for staying this case, the motion to stay will be denied as unnecessary. (at 1)

Factual background

Petitioner is a state prisoner pursuing federal habeas relief through counsel. He sought a stay pending exhaustion of Claims One through Three in state court. Respondent maintained that those claims had already been exhausted and that only a new declaration had not been presented to the state court; the declaration was unsigned and therefore would not be considered by the court.

Procedural history

David Capps filed a federal habeas petition and moved for a stay pending exhaustion of certain claims in state court. Respondent opposed the motion, asserting that the claims were already exhausted and that the only unpresented material was a new, unsigned declaration. The court denied the stay as unnecessary because respondent represented that the claims were exhausted and petitioner did not rebut that representation or provide another basis for a stay.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…