Brooks v. McDonald
Filing
8
ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 8/1/11 ORDERING that 6 Motion to Proceed IFP is GRANTED; and Clerk is directed to randomly assign a United States District Judge to this action. It is RECOMMENDED th at 2 MOTION to STAY be denied; and this matter be referred back to the undersigned for further proceedings on petitioners original petition for writ of habeas corpus; randomly assigned and referred to Judge Morrison C. England, Jr.; Objections to F&R due within 21 days.(Dillon, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
PHARAOH E. BROOKS,
11
12
Petitioner,
No. CIV S-11-1637 DAD P
vs.
13
M. MCDONALD, Warden,
14
Respondent.
15
16
ORDER AND
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
/
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for writ of habeas
17
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with an application to proceed in forma pauperis.
18
Petitioner has also filed a motion for a stay and abeyance.
19
Examination of the in forma pauperis application reveals that petitioner is unable
20
to afford the costs of suit. Accordingly, the application to proceed in forma pauperis will be
21
granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).
22
23
BACKGROUND
On June 16, 2011, petitioner commenced this action by filing a petition for writ of
24
habeas corpus, challenging his 2008 judgment of conviction entered in the San Joaquin County
25
Superior Court. Petitioner represents that he has filed a “mixed” petition with this court.
26
Specifically, petitioner claims that six of his eight habeas claims are unexhausted. Petitioner
1
1
contends that he has good cause for a stay and abeyance under Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269,
2
277 (2005). He also contends that his claims are potentially meritorious and that he is not using
3
the requested stay as a dilatory tactic. Petitioner maintains that he has been diligently
4
investigating and pursuing all of his claims. (Pet. at 2 & Mot. for Stay & Abey. at 1-2).
5
DISCUSSION
6
Petitioner is advised that a stay and abeyance procedure is available to petitioners
7
who need to exhaust their claims in state court. See Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005)
8
(affirming district court discretion to stay a federal habeas proceeding to allow a petitioner to
9
present unexhausted claims to the state court where there is good cause for the petitioner’s failure
10
to exhaust all claims in state court before filing a federal habeas petition); King v. Ryan, 564
11
F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 2009) (analyzing the two procedures available to habeas petitioners who wish
12
to proceed with exhausted and unexhausted claims for relief).
13
According to petitioner’s form petition, he presented six claims which he
14
characterizes as “unexhausted” on direct appeal to both the California Court of Appeal and the
15
California Supreme Court. Petitioner is advised that where, as here, he has fairly presented his
16
claims to the California Court of Appeal and the California Supreme Court on direct appeal, he
17
has exhausted his state court remedies with regard to those claims. See Picard v. Connor, 404
18
U.S. 270, 276 (1971); Middleton v. Cupp, 768 F.2d 1083, 1086 (9th Cir. 1986). Petitioner is not
19
required to re-litigate his claims in state habeas corpus proceedings to satisfy the federal
20
exhaustion requirement. Accordingly, under these circumstances, the court will recommend that
21
petitioner’s motion for a stay and abeyance be denied.1 If these findings and recommendations
22
/////
23
1
24
25
26
If the court has somehow misunderstood petitioner’s form habeas application and motion
for a stay and abeyance, he should file objections to these findings and recommendations and clarify
why he believes he has not exhausted all of his claims by presenting them to the California Supreme
Court. As noted above, based on petitioner’s submissions to the court, it appears that he exhausted
the six claims about which he is concerned on direct appeal through his petition for review filed with
the California Supreme Court.
2
1
are adopted by the assigned district judge, the court will then issue an order requiring respondent
2
to file and serve a response to petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus.
3
CONCLUSION
4
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
5
1. Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 6) is granted; and
6
2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to randomly assign a United States District
7
Judge to this action.
8
IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:
9
1. Petitioner’s motion for a stay and abeyance (Doc. No. 2) be denied; and
10
11
2. This matter be referred back to the undersigned for further proceedings on
petitioner’s original petition for writ of habeas corpus.
12
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District
13
Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty-
14
one days after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written
15
objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's
16
Findings and Recommendations.” Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the
17
specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951
18
F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
19
DATED: August 1, 2011.
20
21
22
DAD:9
broo1637.styd
23
24
25
26
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?