William H. Baymiller v. People of the State of California

Filing 12

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 2/7/2018 GRANTING 8 Motion to Proceed IFP. Petitioner shall inform the court whether he wishes to proceed with his exhausted claims, or whether he wishes to stay this action pending exhaustion of unexhausted claims within 30 days of the date of this order. (Fabillaran, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

WILLIAM HOLT BAYMILLER,

12
13
14
15

No. 2: 17-cv-2458 KJN P

Petitioner,
v.

ORDER

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA,
Respondent.

16
17
18

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel, has filed a petition for a writ of

19

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with an application to proceed in forma

20

pauperis.

21

Petitioner challenges a 2012 murder conviction from Tehama County. The petition raises

22

two claims which appear to have been presented to the California Supreme Court on direct

23

appeal. Thus, these two claims appear to be exhausted.

24

Petitioner also states that after the instant petition is filed, his jailhouse lawyer will raise a

25

new claim, i.e., that petitioner lacked the mental capacity to form intent to commit murder. It

26

does not appear that this claim has been presented to any court. If petitioner intends to exhaust

27

this new claim in state court, it is unclear whether he is seeking to stay the instant petition

28

pending exhaustion of this new claim.
1

1

Federal district courts should stay mixed petitions only in limited circumstances. Rhines

2

v. Kelly, 544 U.S. 269, 277 (2005). A district court may stay a mixed petition if: (1) the

3

petitioner demonstrates good cause for failing to have first exhausted all claims in state court;

4

(2) the claims potentially have merit; and (3) petitioner has not been dilatory in pursuing the

5

litigation. Id. at 277-78.

6

In the alternative, a court may stay a mixed petition if: (1) the petitioner amends his

7

petition to delete any unexhausted claims; (2) the court stays and holds in abeyance the amended,

8

fully exhausted petition, allowing the petitioner to proceed to exhaust the deleted claims in state

9

court; and (3) petitioner later amends his petition and reattaches the newly exhausted claims to the

10

original petition. Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063, 1070-71 (9th Cir. 2003). The Kelly procedure is

11

riskier than the Rhines procedure since it does not protect the petitioner’s unexhausted claims

12

from expiring during the stay. King v. Ryan, 564 F.3d 1133, 1135 (9th Cir. 2009).

13

Despite the risk of the unexhausted claims becoming time-barred in the course of the

14

Kelly procedure, a petitioner may elect to use that alternative since it does not require him to

15

demonstrate good cause as does the Rhines procedure. King, 564 F.3d at 1140.

16

Petitioner is ordered to inform the court within thirty days whether he wishes to proceed

17

with his exhausted claims at this time or, instead, whether he wishes to stay this action pending

18

exhaustion of an unexhausted claim. If petitioner seeks a stay, he shall file a motion addressing

19

whether the stay is sought pursuant to the procedures outlined in Rhines or Kelly. If petitioner

20

intends to proceed with his exhausted claims at this time, the undersigned will direct the Office of

21

the Attorney General to respond to his exhausted claims.

22

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

23

1. Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted;

24

2. Within thirty days of the date of this order, petitioner shall inform the court whether he

25

wishes to proceed with his exhausted claims, or whether he wishes to stay this action pending

26

exhaustion of unexhausted claims.

27

Dated: February 7, 2018

28

Bay2458.ord

2