Brown v. Madden

Filing 12

Order by Judge Nandor J. Vadas denying 10 Amended Motion to Stay and Dismissing Amended Petition with leave to amend. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(njvlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/26/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 EUREKA DIVISON 7 8 JERRY BROWN, Case No. 17-cv-2691-NJV (PR) Petitioner, 9 v. 10 11 WARDEN RAYMOND MADDEN, United States District Court Northern District of California Respondent. ORDER DENYING AMENDED MOTION TO STAY, DISMISSING PETITION AND GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND Dkt. No. 10 12 13 14 Petitioner, a state prisoner, filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 15 U.S.C. § 2254. The court dismissed Petitioner’s original and amended motions to stay. (Docs. 7, 16 9.) He has filed a first amended motion to stay. (Doc. 10.) 17 BACKGROUND 18 Petitioner was found guilty of various sexual related offenses. People v. Brown, No. 19 A139357, 2015 WL 7572482, at *1 (Cal. Ct. App Nov. 25, 2015). He was sentenced to a 20 determinate term of 37 years and a consecutive indeterminate term of life imprisonment with the 21 possibility of parole. Id. His conviction was affirmed on direct appeal by the California Court of 22 Appeal and the California Supreme Court denied a petition for review. Id.; People v. Brown, No. 23 S231288 (Feb. 3, 2016). DISCUSSION 24 25 Standard of Review 26 This court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus "in behalf of a person in 27 custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in 28 violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Rose v. 1 Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). Habeas corpus petitions must meet heightened pleading 2 requirements. McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994). An application for a federal writ of 3 habeas corpus filed by a prisoner who is in state custody pursuant to a judgment of a state court 4 must “specify all the grounds for relief available to the petitioner . . . [and] state the facts 5 supporting each ground.” Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. 6 “‘[N]otice’ pleading is not sufficient, for the petition is expected to state facts that point to a ‘real 7 possibility of constitutional error.’” Rule 4 Advisory Committee Notes (quoting Aubut v. Maine, 8 431 F.2d 688, 689 (1st Cir. 1970)). Legal Claims 9 The original habeas petition filed in this court asserted that: (1) the trial court committed 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 misconduct in questioning several witnesses; (2) there were improper jury instruction; (3) 12 petitioner's sentence violates the Eighth Amendment; (4) counsel was ineffective for failing to 13 address the improper jury instruction; and (5) counsel was ineffective for not objecting to the trial 14 court’s misconduct while questioning several witnesses. It was not clear what claims had been 15 exhausted and what claims petitioner was seeking to exhaust. 1 (Doc. 1.) The court denied 16 petitioner's motion to stay with leave to amend to provide more information. The court described 17 the manner to request a stay pursuant to Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005) or Kelly v. Small, 18 315 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2003) and King v. Ryan, 564 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 2009). Petitioner’s 19 amended motion for stay was missing the referenced attachments so petitioner has filed a first 20 amended motion to stay with a proposed petition. (Docs. 10, 11.) Petitioner’s first amended petition raises different claims and contends that: (1) there was a 21 22 Brady violation; (2) counsel was ineffective for failing to object to ex parte meetings between the 23 trial court, prosecutor and four jurors; (3) counsel was ineffective for failing to perform an 24 adequate pretrial investigation; and (4) appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise several 25 26 27 28 1 The claims presented to the California Court of Appeal were that the trial court erred by: (1) questioning petitioner and his wife when they testified; (2) instructing the jury it could use a finding that petitioner fled the scene of a crime to indicate his awareness of guilt; (3) imposing a sentence that was cruel and unusual; and (4) imposing an excessive restitution find. Brown, 2015 WL 7572482, at *1 2 1 issues. (Doc. 11.) Petitioner does not indicate if any of these claims were exhausted but they all 2 appear to be unexhausted. Petitioner has not raised claims from the original petition and it is not 3 clear if seeks relief for those claims or to dismiss them. 4 In his amended motion to stay, petitioner states that he wishes to proceed with a King/Kelly stay. However, “[p]ursuant to the Kelly procedure, (1) a petitioner amends his petition to delete 6 any unexhausted claims; (2) the court stays and holds in abeyance the amended, fully exhausted 7 petition, allowing the petitioner the opportunity to proceed to state court to exhaust the deleted 8 claims; and (3) the petitioner later amends his petition and re-attaches the newly-exhausted claims 9 to the original petition.” King v. Ryan, 564 F.3d at 1134 (citing Kelly, 315 F.3d at 1070-71). 10 Petitioner has failed to follow this procedure and instead appears to bring a fully unexhausted 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 5 petition. Therefore, the first amended motion to stay is denied and first amended petition is 12 dismissed with leave to amend for petitioner to file a second amended motion to stay and second 13 amended petition. Petitioner may choose to proceed pursuant to either Rhines or King/Kelly. 14 In Rhines the United States Supreme Court found that a stay and abeyance of a mixed 15 federal petition should be available only in the limited circumstance that good cause is shown for a 16 failure to have first exhausted the claims in state court, that the claim or claims at issue potentially 17 have merit and that there has been no indication that petitioner has been intentionally dilatory in 18 pursuing the litigation. Rhines, supra, at 277-78. If petitioner wishes to stay this action 19 pursuant to Rhines, he shall file a motion addressing the Rhines factors and file an amended 20 petition that identifies all the claims he wishes to proceed with and he must identify which 21 claims are already exhausted and which claims need to be exhausted. 22 In the alternative, petitioner may file a motion for a stay pursuant to the three-step 23 procedure outlined in Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2003) and King v. Ryan, 564 F.3d 24 1133 (9th Cir. 2009). A petitioner seeking to avail himself of the Kelly three-step procedure is not 25 required to show good cause, as under Rhines, but rather must show that the amendment of any 26 newly exhausted claims back into the petition satisfies both Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644, 655 27 (2005), by sharing a “common core of operative facts” and Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167 28 (2001), by complying with the statute of limitations. King, 564 F.3d at 1141-43 (finding district 3 1 court’s dismissal of unexhausted claims was improper because petitioner was not required to show 2 good cause to avail himself of the Kelly three-part procedure but affirming the dismissal as 3 harmless because the unexhausted claims did not relate back to the claims in the original petition 4 that were fully exhausted at the time of filing). However, no statute of limitations protection is 5 imparted by such a stay, nor are exhausted claims adjudicated during the pendency of such a stay. 2 6 If petitioner wishes to seek a King/Kelly stay he must file a second amended petition and 7 delete any unexhausted claims and a file a motion for a stay stating he seeks a King/Kelly stay 8 and discussing how the amendment of any newly exhausted claims shares a common core of 9 operative facts as the exhausted claims and comply with the statute of limitations. CONCLUSION 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 1. The first amended motion for a stay (Doc. 10) is DENIED and proposed amended 12 petition (Doc. 11) is DISMISSED with leave to amend in accordance with the standards set forth 13 above. The second amended motion and petition must be filed within twenty-eight (28) days of 14 the date this order is filed and must include the caption and civil case number used in this order 15 and the words SECOND AMENDED MOTION and SECOND AMENDED PETITION on the 16 respective first pages of the documents. 17 2. Petitioner must keep the court informed of any change of address and must comply with 18 the court's orders in a timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for 19 failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). See Martinez v. Johnson, 20 104 F.3d 769, 772 (5th Cir. 1997) (Rule 41(b) applicable in habeas cases). IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 22 Dated: September 26, 2017 ________________________ NANDOR J. VADAS United States Magistrate Judge 23 24 25 2 26 27 28 Petitioner is cautioned that the habeas corpus statute imposes a one-year statute of limitations for filing non-capital habeas corpus petitions in federal court. In most cases, the one year period will start to run on the date on which the state court judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of time for seeking direct review, although the statute of limitations is tolled while a properly filed application for state post-conviction or other collateral review is pending. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). 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?