Sith v. Virga

Filing 8

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 9/2/2011 ORDERING 2 that Petitioner's motion to file a protective writ is DENIED without prejudice; and within 30 days from the service of this order, petitioner shall file a proper motion for a stay and abeyance, addressing the legal standard and relevant factors for the granting of a stay and abeyance under whichever procedure he elects to pursue from the two set forth above. (Reader, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

VEASNA SITH,

11
12
13
14

Petitioner,
vs.
TIM VIRGA,

ORDER
Respondent.

15
16

No. CIV S-11-0620 DAD P

/
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of

17

habeas corpus pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with a document styled, “Motion To File A

18

Protective Writ.” In accordance with the court’s April 4, 2011 order, petitioner has submitted the

19

$5.00 filing fee.

20

The petition before the court appears to be a mixed petition, containing both

21

exhausted (insufficient evidence for gang enhancement) and unexhausted (ineffective assistance

22

of trial counsel) claims. In his pending motion to file a protective writ, petitioner suggests that he

23

seeks a stay of the proceedings “pending exhaustion of state remedies of potentially meritorious

24

and dispositive federal constitutional claims[.]” (Doc. No. 2 at 6.) Petitioner’s motion to file a

25

protective writ will be denied as unnecessary and defective, without prejudice to the filing of a

26

proper motion for stay and abeyance.
1

1

It is now clear that the court may stay a mixed petition under circumstances, rather

2

than requiring the filing of an amended petition containing only exhausted claims, to allow a

3

petitioner to present his unexhausted claims to a state court for review. Rhines v. Weber, 544

4

U.S. 269, 278 (2005); Jackson v. Roe, 425 F.3d 654, 655-56 (9th Cir. 2005). Therefore, to the

5

extent petitioner seeks permission to file a mixed petition pending exhaustion, his motion is

6

unnecessary and will be denied on that basis.

7

However, to the extent petitioner’s motion is one seeking stay and abeyance of his

8

mixed petition, it is deficient and will be denied without prejudice. In this regard, the United

9

States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has analyzed the two procedures available to habeas

10

petitioners who wish to proceed with exhausted and unexhausted claims for relief. See King v.

11

Ryan, 564 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 2009). First, the Ninth Circuit has explained “the Kelly

12

procedure,” which it had outlined in Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2003). Under the

13

three-step Kelly procedure,

14
15
16

(1) the petitioner amends his petition to delete any unexhausted
claims, (2) the court stays and holds in abeyance the amended, fully
exhausted petition, allowing petitioner the opportunity to proceed
to state court to exhaust the deleted claims, and (3) petitioner later
amends his petition and re-attaches the newly-exhausted claims to
the original petition.

17
18

King, 564 F.3d at 1135. A petitioner who elects to proceed under the Kelly procedure will be

19

able to amend his petition with his newly exhausted claims if they are timely. If a petitioner’s

20

newly-exhausted claims are untimely, he will only be able to amend his petition to include them

21

if they share a “common core of operative facts” with the claims in his original petition. In this

22

regard, the Kelly procedure, unlike the alternative procedure discussed below, is a riskier one for

23

a habeas petitioner because it does not protect a petitioner’s unexhausted claims from expiring

24
25
26
2

1

during a stay. See King, 564 F.3d at 1140-41.1 See also Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167, 172-

2

75 (2001) (unlike the filing of a state habeas petition, the filing of a federal habeas petition does

3

not toll the statute of limitations).

4

As the Ninth Circuit explained in King, the United States Supreme Court has also

5

authorized an alternative procedure which it outlined in Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 277

6

(2005). Under the Rhines procedure, the petitioner need not amend his petition to delete

7

unexhausted claims. Instead, the petitioner may proceed on a “mixed petition,” where there is

8

good cause for the petitioner’s failure to exhaust all claims in state court before filing a federal

9

habeas petition. Id. A petitioner who elects to proceed under the Rhines procedure can, in many

10

instances, avoid an issue with respect to the timeliness of his clams. See King, 564 F.3d at 1140.

11

However, the Supreme Court cautioned that a “stay and abeyance [under the Rhines procedure]

12

should be available only in limited circumstances,” and “district courts should place reasonable

13

time limits on a petitioner’s trip to state court and back.” Rhines, 544 U.S. at 277-78. The

14

Supreme Court explained that district courts should not grant a stay if the petitioner has engaged

15

in abusive litigation tactics or intentional delay or if the unexhausted claims are plainly meritless.

16

Id. at 278. In addition, federal proceedings may not be stayed indefinitely and reasonable time

17

limits must be imposed on a petitioner’s return to state court to exhaust additional claims. Id. at

18

277-78. Therefore, in a motion for a stay and abeyance under Rhines, the petitioner must (1)

19

show good cause for petitioner’s failure to exhaust all claims prior to filing this action, (2)

20

identify petitioner’s unexhausted claims and demonstrate that each is potentially meritorious, (3)

21
22
23
24
25
26

1

According to the allegations of the pending petition, the California Supreme Court
affirmed the underlying conviction on appeal on August 12, 2009. On or about August 17, 2010,
petitioner sought habeas relief from the San Joaquin County Superior Court and such relief was
denied on August 23, 2010. Petitioner does not allege that he has sought or is seeking habeas
relief at this time from the California Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate District or the
California Supreme Court. The pending federal habeas petition was signed by petitioner on
February 1, 2011 and was received and filed on February 25, 2011. The court expresses no
opinion at this time with respect to whether the federal habeas petition now pending before this
court was timely filed under the one-year statute of limitations set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2244.
3

1

describe the status of state court proceedings on the unexhausted claims, and (4) demonstrate that

2

petitioner has acted with diligence in pursuing his unexhausted claims.

3

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

4

1. Petitioner’s February 25, 2011 motion to file a protective writ (Doc. No. 2) is

5

denied without prejudice; and

6

2. Within thirty days from the service of this order, petitioner shall file a proper

7

motion for a stay and abeyance, addressing the legal standard and relevant factors for the granting

8

of a stay and abeyance under whichever procedure he elects to pursue from the two set forth

9

above.

10

DATED: September 2, 2011.

11
12
13
14

DAD:4
sith0620.ord.msa

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
4