Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01483/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01483-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 1 - 06cv1483

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRANK DERELL VAUGHN,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 06 CV 1483 JM (WMc)

ORDER (1) ADOPTING IN PART AND

REJECTING IN PART REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION ; (2) GRANTING

MOTION FOR STAY PENDING

EXHAUSTION IN STATE COURT;

AND (3) DENYING MOTION TO

AMEND AS PREMATURE AND

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

vs.

J.S. WOODFORD, Director,

Respondent.

BACKGROUND

On July 24, 2006, Petitioner filed the present petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his March 18, 2003 California convictions for robbery, second degree

burglary, and kidnaping for the purpose of robbery. For these convictions Petitioner was sentenced

to an indeterminate term of life in prison and a consecutive five-year term. Petitioner has also filed

a motion to (1) stay the present petition so that he may exhaust two newly-discovered Ineffective

Assistance of Counsel claims and (2) amend the present petition to include these two claims once

exhausted and also to cite federal authority in support of the petition. 

The matter was referred to the Honorable William McCurine, Jr., United States Magistrate

Judge, for the issuance of a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), now before the court for review.

After receiving briefing from the parties, the R&R recommends that this court (1) grant Petitioner’s

Motion for Stay and Abeyance; (2) deny without prejudice and as premature Petitioner’s motion to

amend; (3) stay the proceedings pending exhaustion of Petitioner’s two new state claims; (4) direct

Case 3:06-cv-01483-JM-WMC Document 18 Filed 06/05/07 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 - 06cv1483

Petitioner to inform this court in writing of the highest state court’s decision with respect to his two

new claims within thirty days of the decision; and (5) direct Petitioner to file a motion in this court

to lift the stay and amend the petition to include his newly-exhausted claims within sixty days of the

highest state court’s decision. 

The parties were given leave to file written objections to the R&R no later than April 16, 2007.

Replies to objections were to be filed no later than May 14, 2007. To date no objections have been

filed. 

DISCUSSION

The duties of the district court in connection with a magistrate judge’s R&R are set forth in

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636. The district court “shall make

a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made. A judge of the

court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the

magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 676 (1980); McDonnell

Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Business Machines, Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1312-13 (9th Cir. 1981). The

magistrate’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo, regardless of whether any party has filed

objections thereto. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1146-47 (9th Cir. 2007). “If neither party

contests the magistrate’s proposed findings of fact, the court may assume their correctness and decide

the motion on the applicable law.” Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). Since

neither party has filed objections to the R&R, the court will therefore assume the findings of fact

contained therein to be true. 

Before a federal court can adjudicate a habeas petition brought pursuant to § 2254, the

petitioner must have exhausted his state court remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b); Anderson v. Harless,

459 U.S. 4, 6 (1982). District courts must dismiss so-called “mixed” habeas petitions containing both

exhausted and unexhausted claims. Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 510 (1982). A district court,

however, has discretion to stay a mixed habeas petition in limited circumstances so that the petitioner

may litigate his unexhausted claims in state court before returning to federal court. Rhines v. Weber,

544 U.S. 269, 277-78 (2005). A stay under Rhines is appropriate only “when the district court

determines there was good cause for the petitioner's failure to exhaust his claims first in state court.

Case 3:06-cv-01483-JM-WMC Document 18 Filed 06/05/07 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

Respondent did not object to the magistrate’s factual finding that Petitioner’s two new claims

were actually newly-discovered. The court therefore assumes this finding to be correct. Orand, 602

F.2d at 208. 

- 3 - 06cv1483

Moreover, even if a petitioner had good cause for that failure, the district court would abuse its

discretion if it were to grant him a stay when his unexhausted claims are plainly meritless. Cf. 28

U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2).” Id. at 277. However, in the case of a fully exhausted petition, the Rhines

standard–a stay is appropriate only if good cause for failure to exhaust exists and the unexhausted

claims are not plainly meritless–is inapplicable. Jackson v. Roe, 425 F.3d 654, 661 (9th Cir. 2005);

Romero v. Runnels, 2006 WL 2460736 *1, No. CIV S-04-0459 MCE-CMK-P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 23,

2006). Rather, in the present case the stay-and-abeyance procedure approved in Calderon v. United

States Dist. Court (Taylor), 134 F.3d 981, 989 (9th Cir. 1998) and Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063 (9th

Cir. 2003), overruled on other grounds by Robbins, 481 F.3d at 1149, applies. Jackson, 425 F.3d at

661 (noting that whether Rhines’ “limited circumstances” standard applies to stays of fully exhausted

petitions is an open question). Furthermore, it is an abuse of discretion not to stay a fully exhausted

federal petition pending exhaustion of a newly-discovered state claim which could, once exhausted,

be incorporated into an amended federal petition. Fetterly v. Paskett, 997 F.2d 1295, 1301 (9th Cir.

1993). 

As provided in the R&R, the instant petition contains only exhausted claims. See Petition at

6-7; Lodgment 10. In his motion to stay, Petitioner contends that after he filed the present petition,

he has discovered new claims which he is currently presenting to the California courts in a state

habeas petition filed on January 10, 2007.1 Under Fetterly, the stay-and-abeyance procedure should

therefore be implemented as recommended in the R&R. Fetterly, 997 F.3d at 1301. 

Additionally, the R&R was correct in finding that Petitioner’s motion to amend the present

petition to add the two new claims, which are currently pending in state court, should be denied as

premature and without prejudice. See Taylor, 134 F.3d at 989. The court, therefore, does not reach

the merits of the parties’ arguments with respect to Petitioner’s motion to amend. The court, however,

declines the R&R’s invitation to direct Petitioner to file a motion in this court to lift the stay and

amend the petition to include his newly exhausted claims within 60 days of the highest state court’s

decision. See R&R at 5 (“Recommendation (5)”). The choice to file an amended petition or request

Case 3:06-cv-01483-JM-WMC Document 18 Filed 06/05/07 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 4 - 06cv1483

that the stay be lifted belongs to Petitioner and the court will therefore not order him to do so. Cf.

Robbins, 481 F.3d at 1148. 

The motion to amend to cite federal authority is also denied as moot for the reasons set forth

in the R&R. 

CONCLUSION

The court ADOPTS the conclusions, findings, and recommendations contained in the R&R,

with the exception of Recommendation (5), incorporated by reference herein. Recommendation (5)

is REJECTED for the reason set forth above. The court GRANTS Petitioner’s motion for a 120-day

stay of the instant proceedings while the California courts review Petitioner’s new claims. The 120-

day stay is measured from the date this order is entered. The motion to amend is DENIED without

prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 5, 2007

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

 United States District Judge

cc: Magistrate Judge McCurrine 

All Parties 

Case 3:06-cv-01483-JM-WMC Document 18 Filed 06/05/07 Page 4 of 4