Smith v. Martel

Filing 75

ORDER denying 67 Motion to Stay; denying as moot 69 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on on 12/18/2018. (ejdlc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/18/2018)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN JOSE DIVISION

10
11

ROBERT LEE SMITH,

Case No. 11-cv-03062-EJD

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Petitioner,
12
v.
13
14

RONALD DAVIS,
Respondent.

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE MOTION TO FILE
AMENDED PETITION AND FOR
CONTINUED STAY
Re: Dkt. Nos. 67, 69

15
16

Petitioner has filed a Motion To File Amended Petition And For Continued Stay. ECF

17

Dkt. No. 67. Petitioner, who is currently exhausting claims in state court, requests this Court to

18

temporarily lift the stay imposed on his federal petition, amend his federal petition to include

19

additional “materials and facts discovered in the exhaustion process”, and re-impose a stay

20

pending the conclusion of exhaustion proceedings. ECF Dkt. No. 71 at 2. Respondent opposes

21

petitioner’s request on the grounds that petitioner’s requested amendment is untimely. For the

22

reasons discussed below, petitioner’s Motion is DENIED.

23
24

Background
In 1993, a jury convicted petitioner of the first degree murders of Michelle Dorsey and

25

James Martin, among other offenses, and found true the special circumstances that petitioner

26

committed multiple murders and that each murder was committed in the course of a robbery.

27
28

Case No.: 11-cv-03062-EJD
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE MOTION TO FILE AMENDED PETITION AND
FOR CONTINUED STAY
1

1

Petitioner was sentenced to death. The Supreme Court of California affirmed his conviction and

2

sentence. People v. Smith, 40 Cal. 4th 483 (2007).

3

On June 6, 2006, petitioner filed his state petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The Supreme

4

Court of California denied this petition on June 15, 2011. Following the grant of equitable tolling,

5

petitioner filed a federal habeas petition on November 28, 2012. On September 11, 2013, this

6

Court granted petitioner’s motion for a stay pending exhaustion of claims in state court. ECF Dkt.

7

No. 52. Petitioner filed an exhaustion petition on May 19, 2014. That petition remains pending

8

before the California Supreme Court.
LEGAL STANDARD

9
10

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) allows pleading amendments “with leave of court”

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

any time during a proceeding. A pleading may be amended once as a “matter of course” before a

12

responsive pleading is served. Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 15(a). When proposed claims in an

13

amendment are barred by the statute of limitations, Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 15(c)(2) provides for the

14

relation back of claims to the original pleading if the claims asserted in the amended pleading arise

15

out of the conduct, transaction or occurrence set forth in the original pleading. In Mayle v. Felix,

16

545 U.S. 644, 654 (2005), the United States Supreme Court held that “so long as the original and

17

amended petitions state claims that are tied to a common core of operative facts, relation back will

18

be in order.”

19

Petitioner concedes that the one-year statute of limitations imposed on his petition by the

20

Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act has run. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1), ECF Dkt.

21

No. 67 at 5, ECF Dkt. No. 71 at 2. Petitioner’s requested amendment may be warranted if he

22

demonstrates that his new claims relate back to claims contained in his petition. Mayle, 545 U.S.

23

at 654; King v. Ryan, 564 F.3d 1133, 1142-43 (9th Cir. 2009).

24

Petitioner fails to make this showing. In fact, petitioner declines to identify the changes

25

incorporated into his amended petition beyond stating that it contains previously pled claims, as

26

well as “additional facts and circumstances relating to those claims”. ECF Dkt. No. 71 at 1.

27
28

Case No.: 11-cv-03062-EJD
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE MOTION TO FILE AMENDED PETITION AND
FOR CONTINUED STAY
2

1

Petitioner contends that respondent “is not entitled to a track-changes document as to an amended

2

petition” and “can do his own document comparison”. Id. at 5.

3

Having failed to even identify his proposed amendments, petitioner clearly has not

4

demonstrated that any proposed amendments relate back to claims in his original petition. Absent

5

such a showing, petitioner’s proposed amendments are time-barred. See, e.g., Chavarria v.

6

Hamlet, 2010 WL 1461040 at * 3 (“[w]here an amendment is sought to reopen a habeas action

7

that has been stayed to allow the petitioner to exhaust claims not in the original petition, the

8

newly-exhausted claims must “relate-back” to the timely, exhausted claims in the original

9

petition”).

10

Petitioner argues that his request for amendment is supported by Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

U.S. 408 (2005). In Pace, the United States Supreme Court stated, in dicta, that a “petitioner’s

12

reasonable confusion about whether a state filing would be timely will ordinarily constitute ‘good

13

faith’ for him to file in federal court.” Id. at 416. Pace in no way compels the amendment of

14

petitioner’s petition.

15

Respondent further contends that although he will “someday” explain how his amendments

16

relate back to claims in his original petition, it is not necessary to do so at this juncture. ECF Dkt.

17

No. 71 at 6. The grant or denial of an amendment however, is not warranted if amendment is

18

futile. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962) (leave to amend should be freely given unless

19

amendment is futile, untimely, prejudicial or sought in bad faith or with a dilatory motive); Wyatt

20

v. McDonald, 2011 WL 6100611 at *7 (petitioner’s motion to amend his petition would be futile

21

because new claims are time-barred by statute of limitations). Petitioner has failed to demonstrate

22

that amendment of his petition is warranted.

23

//

24

//

25

//

26
27
28

Case No.: 11-cv-03062-EJD
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE MOTION TO FILE AMENDED PETITION AND
FOR CONTINUED STAY
3

1
CONCLUSION

2
3

For the above-mentioned reason, petitioner’s motion is DENIED. Additionally,

4

petitioner’s Administrative Motion To File Exhibits To Amended Petition Under Seal, filed

5

concurrently with his Motion To File Amended Petition, is DENIED as moot.

6
7
8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 18, 2018
______________________________________
EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case No.: 11-cv-03062-EJD
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE MOTION TO FILE AMENDED PETITION AND
FOR CONTINUED STAY
4