Gipson v. Unknown

Filing 8

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 10/26/15 ordering that within 30 days of the filing of this order, petitioner must file a notice with the court advising whether he has exhausted his state court remedies for the claims in the petition. Petitioner should attach copies of his state court petition and the state court order(s) denying them. If petitioner has not exhausted his state court remedies, he must also advise whether he is still pursuing those remedies. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

HAROLD LYNN GIPSON,

12

Petitioner,

13
14

No. 2:15-cv-0841 AC P

v.

ORDER

UNKNOWN,

15

Respondent.

16
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas

17
18

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
In the petition, petitioner indicates that he is challenging the same conviction that he is

19
20

challenging in Gipson v. Sherman, USDC EDCA No. 2:14-cv-01412 AC (Gipson I).1 ECF No. 1

21

at 3. Gipson I is currently stayed pursuant to Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2003), to

22

allow petitioner to exhaust his unexhausted claims which included the claims petitioner is

23

attempting to pursue in the instant petition. See Gipson I ECF Nos. 1, 12. Upon exhaustion of

24

those claims in state court, petitioner was to notify the court in Gipson I and file an amended

25

petition containing the newly exhausted claims within thirty days of his receipt of the state

26

Supreme Court’s decision. Gipson I ECF No. 12 at 3. Instead, petitioner has filed the instant

27
28

1

Gipson I is also before the undersigned.
1

1

petition in which he indicates that his previously unexhausted claims remain unexhausted. ECF

2

No. 1 at 6-7, 12.

3

Petitioner was not granted a stay in Gipson I so that he could pursue his unexhausted

4

claims in a separate federal action. He was granted a stay to pursue exhaustion of those claims in

5

state court, which he does not appear to have done. In the event the petition incorrectly reflects

6

the exhaustion status of the claims therein, then the petition should be construed as a motion to

7

amend the petition in Gipson I. Woods v. Carey, 525 F.3d 886, 888-90 (9th Cir. 2008) (holding

8

that petitioner’s second pro se habeas petition was not successive under § 2244 and should instead

9

be construed as a motion to amend because it was filed while his previous petition was still

10

pending before the district court).

11

Petitioner will be required to file a notice advising the court whether he has exhausted the

12

claims contained within the petition in state court. If petitioner has not exhausted his claims, the

13

petition will be denied for failure to exhaust state remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). If petitioner

14

has exhausted his state remedies, the petition will be construed as a motion to lift the stay and

15

amend the petition in Gipson I.

16

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within thirty days of the filing of this order,

17

petitioner must file a notice with the court advising whether he has exhausted his state court

18

remedies for the claims in the petition. Petitioner should attach copies of his state court petition

19

and the state court order(s) denying them. If petitioner has not exhausted his state court remedies,

20

he must also advise whether he is still pursuing those remedies.

21

DATED: October 26, 2015

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2