Wallace v. Barnes

Filing 43

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 12/17/14 RECOMMENDING that Respondents June 18, 2014 motion to dismiss ( 22 be granted, and the petition be dismissed with leave to amend; Petitioners motions to amend [ 25], 42 and for stay 32 , 40 be granted; and Petitioner be ordered, within 30 days of the date of any order adopting these findings and recommendations, to file an amended petition stating only claims that have been exhausted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b); Petitioner be ordered, concurrently with the amended petition, to inform the court whether he is pursuing exhaustion of other claims in state court such that the instant case should be stayed under Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2002); Petitioner be granted permission to include within his amended petition his claim as stated in his motion for fair and constructive notice (ECF No. 37 ), provided that claim has been exhausted; and Petitioners motion for fair and constructive notice (ECF No. 37 ) be otherwise denied as moot. Referred to Judge Morrison C. England, Jr.; Objections to F&R due within 14 days.(Dillon, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

GEORGE WALLACE,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:14-cv-0157-MCE-EFB P

Petitioner,
v.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RON E. BARNES,
Respondent.

16
17

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel seeking a writ of habeas corpus.

18

See 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Currently before the court are respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition

19

(ECF No. 22), petitioner’s motions to amend the petition (ECF Nos. 25, 42), for a stay-and-abey

20

(ECF Nos. 32, 40), and “for fair and constructive notice” (ECF No. 37). For the reasons that

21

follow, it is recommended that the motions to dismiss, amend, and stay be granted and the motion

22

“for fair and constructive notice” be denied.

23
24

I. Background
Petitioner is incarcerated in Pelican Bay State Prison on a sentence of life without the

25

possibility of parole following conviction on two counts of murder with a variety of sentence-

26

enhancing circumstances. ECF No. 1 at 1. Petitioner’s direct appeals of his conviction were not

27

successful. Id. at 2. Petitioner also filed three unsuccessful state habeas petitions, one at each

28

level of state court.
1

1
2

II. The Motions to Dismiss, Amend, and Stay
Petitioner raises ten claims in this action. Id. at 18-22. He concedes, and the record

3

shows, that eight of those claims have not been presented to the California Supreme Court. ECF

4

No. 25; Resp.’s Lodged Documents (hereinafter “Lodg. Doc.”), Lodg. Doc. No. 9 (Petn. for

5

[Direct] Review in the Cal. Supreme Ct.) & No. 11 (Petn. for Writ of Habeas Corpus in the Cal.

6

Supreme Ct.). The unexhausted claims are labeled as 3(a), 3(b), 3(c), 3(e), 3(f), 3(i), 3(k), and

7

3(unlettered). ECF No. 1 at 18-22.

8

Federal law requires that, to assert a claim in a federal habeas petition, the petitioner must

9

have already fairly presented the claim to the highest state court with jurisdiction to consider it,

10

either through appeal or collateral proceedings. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b); Johnson v. Zenon, 88 F.3d

11

828, 829 (9th Cir. 1996). To “fairly present” a claim, the state appeal or petition “must include

12

reference to a specific federal constitutional guarantee, as well as a statement of the facts that

13

entitle the petitioner to relief.” Gray v. Netherland, 518 U.S. 152, 162-63 (1996). Claims of

14

ineffective assistance of counsel (as are presented here), where based on different facts, must each

15

be exhausted prior to presentation in a federal petition. Moorman v. Schriro, 426 F.3d 1044, 1056

16

(9th Cir. 2005).

17

The petition before the court is therefore what is known as a “mixed” petition; that is, one

18

that presents both exhausted and unexhausted claims. Ordinarily, such petitions must be

19

dismissed with leave to amend to allow the petitioner to file an amended petition stating only

20

exhausted claims (either by exhausting the unexhausted claims before amending or deleting the

21

exhausted claims from the amended petition). Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 520 (1982); James v.

22

Giles, 221 F.3d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 2000).

23

In apparent recognition of this legal reality, petitioner filed a motion to amend to delete

24

the unexhausted claims from the petition. ECF No. 25. Before the court ruled on that motion,

25

however, petitioner filed a motion asking the court to stay the case to allow him to return to state

26

court to exhaust the unexhausted claims. ECF No. 32. Petitioner has since filed another motion

27

for stay, indicating that he has exhausted several of the previously unexhausted grounds and

28

seeking a stay so that he may exhaust one remaining unexhausted ground. ECF No. 40.
2

1

Petitioner also seeks leave to amend his petition once he has exhausted certain claims. ECF No.

2

42. As justification for such a stay, petitioner states simply that he is “a layman and ignorant to

3

Rules and Procedures, of this exhaustion doctrine” and “believed that he had exhausted his state

4

claims.” ECF No. 32 at 2. Respondent has not filed an opposition or statement of no opposition

5

to either the motion to amend or the motion to stay. See E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(c).

6

There are two approaches for analyzing stay-and-abey motions—one provided for by

7

Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2002) and the other by Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269

8

(2005). King v. Ryan, 564 F.3d 1133, 1138-41 (9th Cir. 2009). Kelly provides that a district court

9

may stay a petition containing only exhausted claims and hold it in abeyance pending exhaustion

10

of additional claims which may then be added to the petition through amendment. Kelly, 315

11

F.3d at 1070-71; King, 564 F.3d at 1135. If a petition contains both exhausted and unexhausted

12

claims, a petitioner seeking a stay under Kelly must dismiss the unexhausted claims from the

13

petition and seek to add them back in through amendment after exhausting them in state court.

14

King, 564 F.3d at 1138-39. The previously unexhausted claims, once exhausted, must be added

15

back into the federal petition within the statute of limitations provided for by 28 U.S.C.

16

§ 2244(d)(1), however. King, 564 F.3d at 1140-41. Under that section, a one-year limitation

17

period for seeking federal habeas relief begins to run from the latest of the date the judgment

18

became final on direct review, the date on which a state-created impediment to filing is removed,

19

the date the United States Supreme Court makes a new rule retroactively applicable to cases on

20

collateral review or the date on which the factual predicate of a claim could have been discovered

21

through the exercise of due diligence. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d)(1). A federal habeas petition does not

22

toll the limitations period under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2). Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167, 181-

23

82 (2001).

24

Under Rhines, a district court may stay a mixed petition in its entirety, without requiring

25

dismissal of the unexhausted claims while the petitioner attempts to exhaust them in state court.

26

King, 564 F.3d at 1139-40. Unlike the Kelly procedure, however, Rhines requires that the

27

petitioner show good cause for failing to exhaust the claims in state court prior to filing the

28

federal petition. Rhines, 544 U.S. at 277-78; King, 564 F.3d at 1139. In addition, a stay pursuant
3

1

to Rhines is inappropriate where the unexhausted claims are “plainly meritless” or where the

2

petitioner has engaged in “abusive litigation tactics or intentional delay.” Id.

3

Here, a stay of the type provided by Rhines is not available to petitioner, because he has

4

not shown good cause for not having already exhausted the unexhausted claims, as Rhines

5

requires. “Good cause” has been interpreted by the Ninth Circuit as “a reasonable excuse,

6

supported by sufficient evidence, to justify that failure [to exhaust].” Blake v. Baker, 745 F.3d

7

977, 982 (9th Cir. 2014). A mere lack of knowledge and a mistaken belief that unexhausted

8

claims had been exhausted, as petitioner puts forth for justification here, do not constitute good

9

cause. Id. at 981; Wooten v. Kirkland, 540 F.3d 1019, 1024 (9th Cir. 2008).

10

Because good cause is not required under Kelly, the court may grant petitioner’s request to

11

stay the case under Kelly and dismiss the petition with leave to file an amended, fully exhausted

12

petition. If petitioner has already completed exhaustion of the claims identified herein as

13

unexhausted, he may include those claims in the amended petition and the case will proceed. If

14

exhaustion has not yet been completed, the amended petition should not include the unexhausted

15

claims. Instead, the court will hold the amended petition in abeyance until petitioner exhausts the

16

currently-unexhausted claims. Once exhaustion is complete, petitioner may once again amend

17

the petition to re-attach claims 3(a), 3(b), 3(c), 3(e), 3(f), 3(i), 3(k), and 3(unlettered, page 22 of

18

the federal petition). Petitioner is cautioned, however, that the one-year statute of limitations in

19

28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) will not be stopped while he exhausts the unexhausted claims.

20

III. Petitioner’s Motion “For Fair and Constructive Notice”

21

Petitioner has filed a “motion for fair and constructive notice based upon AB885 i.e.

22

Brady v. Maryland exculpatory.” ECF No. 37. Respondent has not filed any opposition or

23

statement of no opposition. Petitioner’s filing appears to state an additional claim for habeas

24

relief. See id. (“Petitioner contends the prosecutor was allowed to impose concerted efforts in

25

collision of the (Judicial) procedures: when the local oligarchy i.e. ‘Appellate Courts’ allowed the

26

Exculpatory Evidence to be withheld from the face sheet of the record.”). As the filing is not

27

/////

28

/////
4

1

actually a motion, but rather an additional claim for relief, petitioner should be given leave to

2

include the claim in his amended petition, provided the claim has been exhausted, and the motion

3

should be denied as moot.

4

IV. Recommendations

5

For the reasons stated above, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that:

6

1. Respondent’s June 18, 2014 motion to dismiss (ECF No. 22) be granted, and the

7

petition be dismissed with leave to amend;

8

2. Petitioner’s motions to amend (ECF Nos. 25, 42) and for stay (ECF Nos. 32, 40) be

9

granted; and

10

3. Petitioner be ordered, within 30 days of the date of any order adopting these findings

11

and recommendations, to file an amended petition stating only claims that have been

12

exhausted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b);

13

4. Petitioner be ordered, concurrently with the amended petition, to inform the court

14

whether he is pursuing exhaustion of other claims in state court such that the instant

15

case should be stayed under Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2002);

16

5. Petitioner be granted permission to include within his amended petition his claim as

17

stated in his motion “for fair and constructive notice” (ECF No. 37), provided that

18

claim has been exhausted; and

19

6. Petitioner’s motion “for fair and constructive notice” (ECF No. 37) be otherwise

20

denied as moot.

21

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

22

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days

23

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

24

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

25

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections

26

/////

27

/////

28

/////
5

1

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v.

2

Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

3

DATED: December 17, 2014.

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6