Richard Farley v. Ronald Davis

Filing 63

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton granting 61 Motion to Stay. (kcS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/8/2018)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 RICHARD W. FARLEY, 8 Petitioner, 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 v. Case No. 16-cv-04443-PJH DEATH PENALTY CASE RON DAVIS, Respondent. ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY Re: Dkt. No. 61 12 13 14 Farley has filed a motion to stay the current proceeding pursuant to King v. Ryan, 15 564 F.3d 1133, 1141-42 (9th Cir. 2009), and Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 16 2003), so that he may return to state court to exhaust his unexhausted claims. Davis has 17 filed a statement of non-opposition. 18 Under the procedure outlined in Kelly, “(1) a petitioner amends his petition to 19 delete any unexhausted claims; (2) the court stays and holds in abeyance the amended, 20 fully exhausted petition, allowing the petitioner the opportunity to proceed to state court to 21 exhaust the deleted claims; and (3) the petitioner later amends his petition and re- 22 attaches the newly-exhausted claims to the original petition.” King, 564 F.3d at 1134 23 (citing Kelly, 315 F.3d at 1070–71). Farley is not required to show good cause as under 24 Rhines, but rather must eventually show that the amendment of any newly exhausted 25 claims back into the petition satisfies both Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644, 655 (2005), by 26 sharing a “common core of operative facts” and Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167 (2001), 27 by complying with the statute of limitations. King, 564 F.3d at 1141–43. 28 1 As noted by Davis in his statement of non-opposition, the Court’s February 5, 2018 2 Order dismissing the unexhausted claims completed the first step of the process. 3 Accordingly, Farley’s motion to stay is GRANTED. The Federal Public Defender of 4 Arizona is hereby appointed to represent Farley in his state exhaustion proceedings. 5 Within 90 days of the filing date of this Order, Farley shall file an exhaustion 6 petition in state court. To the extent that any claim contains allegations or supporting 7 documentation that were not part of the state court record, pursuant to Cullen v. 8 Pinholster, 131 U.S. 1388, 1400 (2011), such materials must be presented to the 9 California Supreme Court before they may be reviewed by this Court under 28 U.S.C 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 § 2254(d)(1). Accordingly, they should be included in the exhaustion petition One hundred and twenty days after the entry of this Order, and every 90 days 12 thereafter until proceedings in his state exhaustion case are completed, Farley shall 13 serve and file in this Court a brief report containing an update on the status of his pending 14 state habeas action. No later than thirty (30) days after proceedings in his state case are 15 completed, Farley shall serve and file notice that proceedings are completed. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 18 19 20 Dated: May 8, 2018 __________________________________ PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?