Brown v. Madden
Filing
17
Order by Magistrate Judge Robert M. Illman granting 13 Motion to Stay. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(rmilc1s, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/29/2017)
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-RMI (PR)
Petitioner,
9
v.
10
11
WARDEN RAYMOND MADDEN,
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Respondent.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
STAY AND ADMINISTRATIVELY
CLOSING CASE
Dkt. No. 13
12
13
14
Petitioner, a state prisoner, filed a pro se writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
15
2254. The court denied Petitioner’s first amended motion to stay with leave to amend. (Doc. 12.)
16
He has filed a second amended motion to stay and an amended petition. (Doc. 13.)
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)).
9
10
Legal Claims
As grounds for federal habeas relief, petitioner asserts that: (1) the trial court committed
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
misconduct in questioning several witnesses; (2) there were improper jury instruction; (3) his
12
sentence violates the Eighth Amendment; (4) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to address the
13
improper jury instruction; (5) trial counsel was ineffective for not objecting to the trial court’s ex
14
parte meeting and not performing an adequate pretrial investigation; (6) there was a Brady
15
violation; and (7) appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise several issues. Docket No.
16
13 at 6, 37-38.
17
Petitioner indicates that the first four claims are exhausted but the remaining claims are
18
unexhausted. Petitioner seeks a stay pursuant to Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005) to exhaust
19
the remaining claims. Liberally construing the motion, petitioner has shown good cause for his
20
failure to exhaust the claims before filing this action, the claims do not appear patently meritless,
21
and there do not appear to be any intentionally dilatory litigation tactics by petitioner. Petitioner
22
is informed that before he may challenge either the fact or length of his confinement in a
23
habeas petition in this court, he must present to the California Supreme Court any claims he
24
wishes to raise in this court. See Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 522 (1982) (holding every claim
25
raised in federal habeas petition must be exhausted).
26
27
28
CONCLUSION
1. Petitioner’s motion for a stay (Docket No. 13) is GRANTED and this case is STAYED
to allow petitioner to present his unexhausted claims in state court. If petitioner is not granted
2
1
relief in state court, he may return to this court and ask that the stay be lifted.
2
2. The stay is subject to the following conditions:
3
(1) Petitioner must diligently pursue his state court habeas proceedings; and
4
(2) Petitioner must notify this court within thirty days after the state courts have completed
5
6
their review of his claim or after they have refused review of his claims.
If either condition of the stay is not satisfied, this Court may vacate the stay and act on this
7
petition. See Rhines, 544 U.S. at 278 (district court must effectuate timeliness concerns of
8
AEDPA by placing “reasonable limits on a petitioner’s trip to state court and back.”).
9
The Clerk shall administratively close this case. The closure has no legal effect; it is
purely a statistical matter. The case will be reopened and the stay vacated upon notification by
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
petitioner in accordance with section (2) above.
12
3. Petitioner must keep the court informed of any change of address and must comply with
13
the court's orders in a timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for
14
failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). See Martinez v. Johnson,
15
104 F.3d 769, 772 (5th Cir. 1997) (Rule 41(b) applicable in habeas cases).
16
17
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 29, 2017
________________________
ROBERT M. ILLMAN
United States Magistrate Judge
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?