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

Filing 29

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 7/22/2022 RECOMMENDING that the stay of this action be lifted, that Petitioner's unexhausted claim raised in the original petition be dismissed, and that Respondent be ordered to file a response to the 2 exhausted claims raised in the original petition. Referred to District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. Objections due within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Huang, H)

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

Petitioner,

13
14
15

No. 2: 17-cv-2458 MCE KJN P

v.

FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, et al.,
Respondent.

16
17
18

Petitioner is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a petition for writ of habeas

19

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. For the reasons stated herein, the undersigned recommends

20

that the stay of this action be lifted and the unexhausted claim be dismissed.

21

Background
Petitioner challenges his 2012 murder conviction from the Tehama County Superior

22
23

Court. (ECF No. 1 at 1.) The petition raises the following claims. First, petitioner alleges that

24

the trial court erred by admitting the report of Wilson, addressing petitioner’s competence to

25

stand trial. (Id. at 5.) Second, petitioner alleges that the prosecution failed to prove that

26

petitioner’s insanity at the time of the crime was due to drugs and alcohol. (Id. at 7.) These

27

claims were presented to the California Supreme Court. (Id. at 2.)

28

/////
1

1

Petitioner raises a third claim alleging that he did not have the mental capacity to form the

2

intent to commit murder. (Id. at 12.) The petition indicates that this claim has not been presented

3

to the California Supreme Court. (Id.)

4
5

On August 24, 2018, the court stayed this action, pursuant to Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S.
269 (2005), in order for petitioner to exhaust his unexhausted claim. 1 (ECF No. 17.)

6

On April 6, 2020, the Honorable Morrison C. England’s Courtroom Deputy Clerk issued a

7

minute order (at the direction of Judge England) ordering petitioner to file a status report not later

8

than July 1, 2020. (ECF No. 18.) Petitioner did not file a status report. Accordingly, on October

9

27, 2021, the undersigned recommended that this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute.

10

(ECF No. 19.)

11

On November 15, 2021, petitioner filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

12

(ECF No. 20.) Petitioner alleged that he suffered from severe mental illness that prevented him

13

from prosecuting this action. (Id.) Petitioner alleged that he did not file a status report in

14

response to the April 6, 2020 order because he did not know what a status report was and had no

15

legal assistance. (Id.) Petitioner alleged that he obtained legal assistance in October 2021. (Id.)

16

Petitioner alleged that he filed a habeas corpus petition in the Tehama County Superior Court on

17

or around November 7, 2021. (Id.)

18

On November 30, 2021, the undersigned vacated the October 27, 2021 findings and

19

recommendations. (ECF No. 21.) The undersigned ordered petitioner to file a status report

20

within sixty days addressing the status of his habeas corpus petition filed in the Tehama County

21

Superior Court and whether he filed other habeas corpus petitions in state court raising his

22

unexhausted claim. (Id.)

23
24
25
26
27
28

1

A state prisoner must exhaust his state court remedies before a federal court may consider
granting habeas corpus relief. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A); O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838,
842 (1999). To satisfy the exhaustion requirement, a habeas petitioner must fairly present his
federal claims in the state courts to give the state the opportunity to pass upon and correct alleged
violations of the prisoner’s federal rights. Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365 (1995) (per
curiam). The inclusion of both exhausted and unexhausted claims in a federal habeas petition
renders it mixed and subject to dismissal without prejudice. See Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509,
522 (1982). However, under Rhines, a court has discretion to stay a mixed or wholly unexhausted
petition to allow a petitioner time to present unexhausted claims to state courts. 544 U.S. at 276.
2

1
2

On January 18, 2022, petitioner filed a status report. (ECF No. 22.) Petitioner stated that
his habeas petition was pending in the Tehama County Superior Court. (Id.)

3

On March 23, 2022, the undersigned ordered petitioner to file a status report within sixty

4

days addressing the status of his habeas corpus petition filed in the Tehama County Superior

5

Court and whether he filed other habeas corpus petitions in state court raising his unexhausted

6

claim. (ECF No. 24.)

7

On May 6, 2022, petitioner filed a motion for extension of time to file his status report.

8

(ECF No. 25.) On May 12, 2022, the undersigned granted petitioner’s motion for extension of

9

time and ordered the status report due within sixty days. (ECF No. 26.)

10

On July 14, 2022, petitioner filed a status report. (ECF No. 28.) Petitioner states that he

11

is providing the court with the Tehama County Superior Court’s opinion, as requested. (Id. at 1.)

12

Attached to the July 14, 2022 status report is a copy of a habeas corpus petition filed by petitioner

13

in the Tehama County Superior Court on December 20, 2021. (Id. at 6.) Petitioner signed this

14

petition on November 7, 2021. (Id. at 11.)

15

Also attached to the July 14, 2022 status report is an order by the Tehama County

16

Superior Court, filed December 28, 2021, denying petitioner’s habeas corpus petition. (Id. at 2.)

17

The order states that petitioner filed his first petition on November 6, 2017. (Id.) The first

18

petition was stricken by the court on December 5, 2017, for lack of notice to, and service, upon

19

the People. (Id.) The Minute Order of December 5, 2017, and a copy of the first petition were

20

returned to petitioner, with the proof of service dated December 12, 2017. (Id.)

21

The Superior Court found that the petition, filed December 20, 2021, raised three claims:

22

1) ineffective assistance of counsel; 2) a request for relief pursuant to Senate Bill 1134; and 3)

23

“the heavily litigated issues of petitioner’s mental state and psychiatric defenses at trial as

24

addressed in the thorough analysis by the Court of Appeals.” (Id. at 3.) The Superior Court

25

denied the petition as untimely, finding that petitioner had not justified his failure to raise these

26

issues previously. (Id. at 3-4.)

27

/////

28

/////
3

1
2

Discussion
District courts should not allow petitioners to “frustrate AEDPA’s goal of finality by

3

dragging out indefinitely their federal habeas review.” Rhines, 544 U.S. at 277. Thus, a habeas

4

case “should not be stayed indefinitely.” Id.; accord Ryan v. Gonzales, 568 U.S. 57, 76 (2013)

5

(“an indefinite stay would be inappropriate”) (citing Rhines 544 U.S. at 277). The decision

6

whether to allow a habeas case to be stayed “is generally left to the sound discretion of district

7

courts.” Gonzales, 568 U.S. at 74 (citation omitted).

8
9

Although this action was stayed on August 24, 2018, petitioner did not file a habeas
petition in state court in order to exhaust his unexhausted claim until on or around November

10

2021. It appears that petitioner filed this petition only after being prompted by this court.

11

Assuming petitioner’s mental illness and lack of legal training impacted petitioner’s ability to file

12

a petition in state court, these circumstances do not excuse the over three years petitioner took to

13

file his petition in the Tehama County Superior Court after this action was stayed. In addition,

14

petitioner inexplicably waited approximately six months to inform this court of the Tehama

15

County Superior Court’s December 28, 2021 order denying his habeas petition. It is also clear

16

that petitioner did not file any habeas petitions in state court after the Tehama County Superior

17

Court’s December 28, 2021 order.

18

For the reasons discussed above, the undersigned finds that petitioner’s lack of diligence

19

warrants vacating the stay. “District court have routinely vacated stays after much shorter delays

20

in pursuing exhaustion in state court.” Goodwin v. Madden, 2022 WL 2193112, at *4 (C.D. Cal.

21

June 17, 2022) (citing Smith v. Koenig, 2020 WL 1310529, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 16, 2020) (“Six

22

months have passed since Petitioner’s request for a stay was granted, yet Petitioner still has not

23

presented his claim to the California Supreme Court in order to exhaust his state remedies.”),

24

report and recommendation adopted, 2020 WL 1305622 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2020); Kennedy v.

25

Madden, 2019 WL 2902486, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2019) (recommending lifting the stay after

26

Petitioner failed to present his claims to the California Supreme Court in the past 4½ months),

27

report and recommendation adopted, 2019 WL 2902505 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 2019); Antonio

28

Alamos v. Sherman, 2019 WL 3312462, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 15, 2019) (recommending lifting
4

1

the stay after Petitioner failed to provide “any proof that he has pursued state court exhaustion of

2

his claim in the past eight months”), report and recommendation adopted, Alamos v. Sherman,

3

2019 WL 3308764 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 25, 2019); Villeda v. Seibel, 2017 WL 7037639, at *4 (C.D.

4

Cal. Dec. 27, 2017) (“Almost nine months after this court’s order, Petitioner still has not

5

commenced exhaustion proceedings in state court and there is no reasonable prospect that he will

6

do so.”), report and recommendation adopted, 2018 WL 534285 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 19, 2018);

7

Alsborg v. Yates, 2009 WL 1740914, at *1 (C.D. Cal. June 17, 2009) (“Petitioner does not appear

8

to be diligent in exhausting his claims. An entire year has elapsed since the Court of Appeal

9

denied his state habeas petition, and Petitioner has still not filed a habeas petition in the California

10

Supreme Court.”)).

11

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

12

1.

13

2. Petitioner’s unexhausted claim raised in the original petition be dismissed;

14

3. Respondent be ordered to file a response to the two exhausted claims raised in the

15

The stay of this action be lifted;

original petition.

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” If petitioner files objections,

21

he shall also address whether a certificate of appealability should issue and, if so, why and as to

22

which issues. A certificate of appealability may issue under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 “only if the

23

applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. §

24

2253(c)(3). Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may

25

waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir.

26

1991).

27

Dated: July 22, 2022

28

bay2458.156
5