Bohannan v. Muniz
Filing
34
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 4/23/18 ORDERING petitioner shall, within twenty-one (21) days after the filing date of this order, file and serve a supplemental brief informing the court whether petitioners motion to stay this action is made pursuant to Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005), or Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2003). Within fourteen (14) days after service of petitioners supplemental brief, respondent shall file and serve a response.(Plummer, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
KELLY LEE BOHANNAN,
12
Petitioner,
13
14
v.
No. 2:16-cv-1342 TLN AC P
ORDER
WILLIAM L. MUNIZ,
15
Respondent.
16
17
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a petition for a
18
writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See ECF No. 1. Respondent has filed
19
an answer, ECF No. 20; petitioner filed a reply, ECF No. 33. However, prior to filing his
20
substantive reply, petitioner filed a motion to stay this action while he exhausts additional claims
21
in the state courts. See ECF No. 31. For the reasons set forth below, petitioner will be directed to
22
file a supplemental brief informing the court whether his motion to stay this action is made
23
pursuant to Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005), or Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir.
24
2003); and respondent will be directed to file a response.
Petitioner seeks a stay of this action under Rhines “and/ or” Kelly. ECF No. 31 at 1. The
25
26
motion responds to the substance of respondent’s answer to the petition. Petitioner
27
////
28
////
1
1
explains, id. at 2-3:
2
Petitioner has discovered upon review of respondent’s answer to
petition for writ of habeas corpus that petitioner’s first, second, and
fourth claims are non-cognizable state law claims and the only way
to properly remedy [this] . . . is to assert a Sixth Amendment IAC
claim which applies equally to both trial and appellate counsel. . . .
Also, petitioner has now properly submitted Claim [Fourth] [sic]
before the California Supreme Court as upon review of
respondent’s answer it was determined to be unexhausted, therefore
petitioner is attempting to exhaust. . . .
3
4
5
6
7
Petitioner has attached to his motion a draft copy of his new state habeas corpus petition. See
8
ECF No. 31 at 11-6 (Ex. A). The state petition identifies the following single ground for relief
9
(with additional supporting facts), id. at 13:
10
The Sixth and Fourteenth U.S. Constitutional Amendment of the
right to effective assistance of counsel which applies equally to
both trial and appellate counsel. Petitioner’s rights were violated
under the Due Process Clause 6th & 14th U.S. Con. Amendments
and petitioner was prejudiced by counsel’s omissions and
ineffectiveness.
11
12
13
14
This petition was apparently filed in the California Supreme Court on February 20, 2018 and
15
remains pending as of this writing.1
16
In further support of his motion, petitioner has attached a “proposed amended” federal
17
habeas petition. See ECF No. 31 at 18-46 (Ex. B).2 Compared with the original petition (ECF
18
No. 1), the proposed amended petition (ECF No. 31) redesignates prior Claim Three as Claim
19
Four (cf. ECF No. 1 at 16 and ECF No. 31 at 33), and adds the above new IAC claim as new
20
Claim Three (see ECF No. 31 at 22). The new claim is set forth only on the form portion of the
21
proposed amended habeas petition. Id.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
In his motion to stay, filed February 2, 2018, petitioner states that his new state petition is
“currently pending in the California Supreme Court.” ECF No. 31 at 1. However, review of the
case information website operated by the California Supreme Court appears to indicate that
petitioner filed the petition on February 20, 2018, which as of this writing remains pending.
A court may take judicial notice of court records. See MGIC Indem. Co. v. Weisman, 803 F.2d
500, 505 (9th Cir. 1986); United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir. 1980); see also
Fed. R. Evid. 201 (court may take judicial notice of facts that are capable of accurate
determination by sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned).
2
This exhibit, which was paginated upon its recent docketing in this court, includes its original
pagination when docketed in the Northern District prior to its transfer to this court.
2
1
The court does not presently address the merits or potential merits of petitioner’s stay
2
request. Rather, the court informs petitioner that the legal standards and potential consequences
3
for staying a federal habeas petition under Rhines and Kelly, while petitioner exhausts additional
4
claims in the state court, are quite different. A Rhines stay is available for a petition that (1) is
5
“mixed,” that is, containing both exhausted and unexhausted claims, or (2) contains only
6
unexhausted claims. See Rhines, 544 U.S. at 275-78; see also Mena v. Long, 813 F.3d 907, 910
7
(9th Cir. 2016). A Rhines stay preserves the federal filing date for unexhausted claims contained
8
in the federal petition, thus potentially avoiding a statute of limitations challenge. However, to
9
obtain a stay under Rhines, the petitioner must show that (1) good cause exists for his failure to
10
earlier exhaust his claim(s) in the state courts, (2) the claim(s) at issue potentially have merit, and
11
(3) petitioner has not intentionally delayed pursuing the litigation. Rhines, at 544 U.S. at 277-78.
12
Alternatively, a petitioner may seek to stay an exhausted-claims-only petition pursuant to
13
Kelly. See King v. Ryan, 564 F.3d 1133, 1135 (9th Cir. 2009) (recounting three-step procedure
14
under Kelly). Under the Kelly procedure, the court may stay a petition containing only exhausted
15
claims while allowing the petitioner to proceed to state court to exhaust additional claims. The
16
procedure under Kelly is as follows: “(1) a petitioner amends his petition to delete any
17
unexhausted claims; (2) the court stays and holds in abeyance the amended, fully exhausted
18
petition, allowing the petitioner the opportunity to proceed to state court to exhaust the deleted
19
claims; and (3) the petitioner later amends his [federal] petition” to reincorporate the newly
20
exhausted claims. King, 564 F.3d at 1139 (citing, inter alia, Kelly, 315 F.3d at 1070-71). The
21
Kelly procedure does not require petitioner to demonstrate good cause or that the claims have
22
potential merit. However, using the Kelly procedure means that any newly-exhausted claims later
23
added to the federal petition by amendment must “relate back” to the claims in the stayed petition
24
or otherwise satisfy applicable statute of limitations requirements. In other words, “the Kelly
25
procedure, unlike the Rhines procedure, does nothing to protect a petitioner’s unexhausted claims
26
from untimeliness in the interim.” King at 1141.
27
Petitioner’s instant motion and proposed amended petition appear to reflect the stay-and-
28
abeyance procedure under Rhines. However, because petitioner’s motion expressly seeks a stay
3
1
based on Rhines “and/or” Kelly, demonstrating petitioner’s failure to distinguish the two
2
procedures, he will be tasked with making a choice in his supplemental brief.
3
In addition, because respondent has filed an answer to the original petition, respondent
4
will be directed to file a response to petitioner’s supplemental brief addressing any potential
5
prejudice to respondent should this court grant petitioner’s motion, as well the potential merit of
6
petitioner’s proferred new claim.
7
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
8
1. Petitioner shall, within twenty-one (21) days after the filing date of this order, file and
9
serve a supplemental brief informing the court whether petitioner’s motion to stay this action is
10
made pursuant to Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005), or Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063 (9th
11
Cir. 2003).
12
2. Within fourteen (14) days after service of petitioner’s supplemental brief, respondent
13
shall file and serve a response.
14
SO ORDERED.
15
DATED: April 23, 2018
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
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?