Walker v. Beard
Filing
18
ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen 17 to Stay Action and Administratively Close Case. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service). (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/22/2017)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
THELMEAS WALKER,
8
Petitioner,
ORDER TO STAY ACTION AND
ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE CASE
v.
9
10
JEFFREY BEARD,
Docket No. 17
Respondent.
11
12
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
Case No. 16-cv-01280-EMC
Thelmeas Walker, Jr., filed this pro se action for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
13
14
U.S.C. § 2254. The Court ordered Respondent to show cause why the petition should not be
15
granted, and Respondent filed an answer to the petition. Mr. Walker then filed a traverse and a
16
request for a stay and abeyance of these proceedings, so that he could exhaust state court remedies
17
for one or more new claims he wishes to present based on the provisions regarding juvenile
18
offenders in California’s recently-passed Proposition 57. Docket No. 17 at 1.
19
There are two kinds of stays available in a habeas action: the Rhines stay and the
20
King/Kelly stay.1 A stay under Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005), “is only appropriate when
21
the district court determines there was good cause for the petitioner’s failure to exhaust his claims
22
first in state court,” the claims are not meritless, and there are no intentionally dilatory litigation
23
tactics by the petitioner. Id. at 277-78. The King/Kelly stay is the second kind of stay and is an
24
alternative method to deal with a petitioner who has some unexhausted claims he wants to present
25
26
27
28
1
Litigants and courts often refer to the procedure as a “stay and abeyance.” The phrase refers to
the district court “stay[ing] the petition and hold[ing] it in abeyance while the petitioner returns to
state court to exhaust.” Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 275 (2005). For convenience, the court
refers to the combined procedure as a stay.
1
in his federal habeas action. Under the procedure outlined in Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063 (9th
2
Cir. 2003), “(1) a petitioner amends his petition to delete any unexhausted claims; (2) the court
3
stays and holds in abeyance the amended, fully exhausted petition, allowing the petitioner the
4
opportunity to proceed to state court to exhaust the deleted claims; and (3) the petitioner later
5
amends his petition and re-attaches the newly-exhausted claims to the original petition.” King v.
6
Ryan, 564 F.3d 1133, 1134 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Kelly, 315 F.3d at 1070-71). A petitioner
7
seeking to avail himself of the Kelly three-step procedure is not required to show good cause as
8
under Rhines, but rather must eventually show that the amendment of any newly exhausted claims
9
back into the petition satisfies both Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644, 655 (2005), by sharing a
“common core of operative facts” and Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167 (2001), by complying with
11
the statute of limitations. Id. at 1141-43.
Here, petitioner specifically requested a King/Kelly stay. Docket No. 17 at 1. The only
12
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
13
currently applicable requirement for a King/Kelly stay is that the petition sought to be stayed has
14
no unexhausted claims. Mr. Walker’s petition satisfies that that requirement. Whether the new
15
claim(s) that Mr. Walker intends to exhaust will relate back to the petition and/or comply with the
16
statute of limitations can be decided when he returns after exhausting state court remedies and
17
moves to amend his petition to add the newly-exhausted claim(s). The court will grant a
18
King/Kelly stay so that Mr. Walker may exhaust state court remedies for claims he wishes to
19
present to this court. Mr. Walker must file his petition containing the claim(s) in state court within
20
sixty days, and must return to federal court within thirty days of a final decision by the state courts
21
on the claim(s). See Kelly, 315 F.3d at 1070.
Mr. Walker’s motion for a stay and abeyance is GRANTED. (Docket No. 17.) After Mr.
22
23
Walker concludes his state court efforts to exhaust his new claim, he may move to file an amended
24
petition in which he presents all his claims, including the new claim.
25
///
26
///
27
///
28
///
2
1
For the foregoing reasons, this action is now STAYED and the Clerk shall
2
ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE the action. Nothing further will take place in this action until
3
Mr. Walker exhausts any unexhausted claims and, within thirty days of doing so, moves to reopen
4
this action, lift the stay and amend his petition to add the newly exhausted claim(s).
5
6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
7
8
9
10
Dated: February 22, 2017
______________________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge
12
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
11
13
14
15
16
17
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?