Voage v. Paramo

Filing 26

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 1/9/14 ORDERING that the December 9, 2013 deadline for respondent to respond to the petition is vacatednunc pro tunc, to be reset if necessary following determination whether a stay is appropriate; Petitioners motion for a stay 23 is dismissed as deficient, but petitioner is granted leave to file an amended motion for a stay and abeyance within thirty days. Respondent will have thirty days thereafter to file any response. Petitioner will thereafter have twenty-one days to file any reply.(Dillon, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

KEVIN SHAW VOAGE,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:13-cv-1342 JAM AC P

Petitioner,
v.

ORDER

DANIEL PARAMO, Warden,
Respondent.

16
17

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas

18

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner was convicted in Yolo County Superior Court in

19

June of 2011 of receiving stolen property and sentenced to a state prison term of thirty years to

20

life under California’s three-strikes law. Petition at 1. Petitioner challenges his conviction on the

21

following grounds: (1) the prosecutor failed to disclose information favorable to the defense; (2)

22

the prosecutor committed misconduct during argument to jury; (3) the trial court erred by failing

23

to strike priors; and (4) petitioner’s three-strikes sentence violates the Eighth Amendment’s

24

prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. Id. at 4-5.

25

Respondent was directed to respond to the petition within sixty days by order filed on July

26

12, 2013. ECF No. 4. Respondent was granted two extensions of time with the most recent

27

deadline having been December 9, 2013. ECF Nos. 18, 21. However, in the interim, on

28

November 12, 2013, petitioner filed a motion for a stay which respondent has opposed. ECF
1

1

Nos. 23, 24.

2

In his motion, petitioner simply states that “some of the claims are unexhausted, and are

3

being exhausted, as of now.” ECF No. 23 at 3. Respondent contends that the motion lacks the

4

specificity necessary to support the requested relief, and asks that the motion be denied or that the

5

petition be dismissed as premature. ECF No. 24.

6

The Exhaustion Requirement

7

The exhaustion of state court remedies is a prerequisite to the granting of a petition for

8

writ of habeas corpus. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). If exhaustion is to be waived, it must be waived

9

explicitly by respondent’s counsel. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(3).1 A waiver of exhaustion may not be

10

implied or inferred. A petitioner satisfies the exhaustion requirement by providing the highest

11

state court with a full and fair opportunity to consider all claims before presenting them to the

12

federal court.2 Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276 (1971); Middleton v. Cupp, 768 F.2d 1083,

13

1086 (9th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 478 U.S. 1021 (1986).

14

Requesting a Stay

15

For the court to consider his request for a stay, petitioner must identify those claims that

16

are exhausted and those that remain unexhausted. A court may stay a petition containing

17

unexhausted claims pursuant to either Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (1995), or Kelly v. Small,

18

315 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2003).3 Kelly and Rhines set out different procedures and impose

19

different requirements for obtaining a stay. Under Rhines, 544 U.S. at 277-78, the United States

20

Supreme Court held that stay and abeyance of a mixed petition (one including both exhausted and

21

unexhausted claims) is available only where good cause is shown for a failure to have first

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

A petition may be denied on the merits without exhaustion of state court remedies. 28 U.S.C. §
2254(b)(2).
2
Petitioner is cautioned that the habeas corpus statute imposes a one year statute of limitations for
filing non-capital habeas corpus petitions in federal court. In most cases, the one year period will
start to run on the date on which the state court judgment became final by the conclusion of direct
review or the expiration of time for seeking direct review, although the statute of limitations is
tolled while a properly filed application for state post-conviction or other collateral review is
pending. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).
3
The three-step Kelly procedure remains available after Rhines. King v. Ryan, 564 F.3d 1133,
1135 (9th Cir. 2009).
2

1

exhausted the claims in state court, the claim or claims at issue potentially have merit, and

2

petitioner has been diligent in pursuing relief. Under Kelly, the court may stay a petition

3

amended to contain only exhausted claims, to permit exhaustion of additional claims in state

4

court. King v. Ryan, 564 F.3d at 1135 (citing Kelly, 315 F.3d at 1070-71). Once the additional

5

claims have been exhausted the petitioner may then amend his petition to restore them, provided

6

that the claims are not time barred (as a stay pursuant to Kelly does not toll the federal limitations

7

period with respect to the unexhausted claims). Id. at 1135, 1140-41. The court may deny a

8

request for stay under Kelly if the new claims cannot be added to the existing habeas petition after

9

they are exhausted in state court due to the time bar. See id. at 1141.

10

Petitioner must file a motion for a stay and abeyance setting forth specifically which

11

claims have been exhausted and for which he is still seeking state court exhaustion. Petitioner

12

must also set forth whether he seeks a stay pursuant to Rhines or Kelly. If petitioner elects to

13

proceed by way of a Rhines stay, he must demonstrate how he meets the requirements for such a

14

stay as set forth above.

15

Conclusion

16

The deadline for respondent to respond to the petition will be vacated at this time.

17

Petitioner’s motion for a stay will be dismissed as deficient but petitioner will be granted thirty

18

days to file an amended motion for a stay, after which respondent will have thirty days to respond

19

and petitioner a further twenty-one days to file any reply. An order directing a response to the

20

petition must await resolution of any amended motion for a stay. Should petitioner fail to amend

21

the motion for a stay and abeyance, the court will recommend denial of the stay and direct

22

respondent to file his response to the petition within thirty days.

23

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

24

1. The December 9, 2013 deadline for respondent to respond to the petition is vacated

25

nunc pro tunc, to be reset if necessary following determination whether a stay is appropriate;

26

2. Petitioner’s motion for a stay (ECF No. 23) is dismissed as deficient, but petitioner is

27

granted leave to file an amended motion for a stay and abeyance within thirty days. Respondent

28

will have thirty days thereafter to file any response. Petitioner will thereafter have twenty-one
3

1
2

days to file any reply;
3. Should petitioner fail to amend the motion for a stay and abeyance, the court will

3

recommend denial of the stay and at that time will direct respondent to file his response to the

4

petition.

5

DATED: January 9, 2014

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4