Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00274/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00274-0/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

K:\COMMON\CHMB_MIL\__SIGNED ORDERS\3 28 2008\08cv0274_options2_3 28 2008.wpd, 3288 -1- 08cv0274

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT CURTIS BASS, Civil No. 08-0274 JM (PCL)

Petitioner,

ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT

PREJUDICE AND WITH LEAVE TO

AMEND AND OUTLINING

PETITIONER’S OPTIONS

vs.

MATTHEW M. MARTEL. et al.,

Respondents.

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus

under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in the Central District of California and the matter was transferred to this

Court on February 11, 2008. The Court dismissed the petition on February 25, 2008, because

Petitioner had not paid the $5.00 filing fee or filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (See

Order dated Feb. 25, 2008 [doc. no. 2].) Petitioner was also advised that his petition was subject

to dismissal because he had not alleged exhaustion as to all claims in the petition. (Id.) The

Order detailed four options from which Petitioner could choose to cure his failure to allege

exhaustion. (Id.) Petitioner was told that if he wished to proceed with this case he must satisfy

the filing fee requirement and choose one of the four options no later than April 21, 2008. (Id.)

On March 7, 2008, Petitioner paid the $5.00 filing fee. (See doc. no. 3.) On March 21,

2008, Petition filed a First Amended Petition, a Supplemental Brief in Support of First Amended

Petition and other supporting documents. (See doc. no. 5.) The petition alleges three grounds

for relief for which Petitioner has alleged exhaustion. However, Petitioner appears to be

Case 3:08-cv-00274-JM-PCL Document 6 Filed 03/28/08 Page 1 of 5
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

 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (b)(1)-(2) states:

(b) (1) An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the

judgment of a State court shall not be granted unless it appears that -

(A) the applicant has exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the State; or

(B)(i) there is an absence of available State corrective process; or (ii) circumstances exist that 

render such process ineffective to protect the rights of the applicant.

 (2) An application for a writ of habeas corpus may be denied on the merits, notwithstanding the failure 

of the applicant to exhaust the remedies available in the courts of the State.

K:\COMMON\CHMB_MIL\__SIGNED ORDERS\3 28 2008\08cv0274_options2_3 28 2008.wpd, 3288 -2- 08cv0274

attempting to raise additional claims in his Supplemental Brief in Support of First Amended

Petition. 

There are two problems with Petitioner’s most recent filing. First, if Petitioner is seeking

to raise the claims contained in the Supplemental Brief in Support of First Amended Petition,

he must include those claims in the petition itself. However, Petitioner is cautioned that his First

Amended Petition must be complete in itself without reference to other documents and that any

claim not re-alleged will be considered waived. See S. D. Cal. CivLR 15.1; King v. Atiyeh, 814

F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987). Secondly, Petitioner has not alleged exhaustion as to the claims

in his Supplemental Brief in Support of First Amended Petition, and accordingly, even if this

Court were able to incorporate those claims, the petition would suffer from the same flaw as his

original petition – that is, he has not alleged exhaustion as to all claims in the petition. 

The exhaustion requirement is satisfied by providing the state courts with a “fair

opportunity” to rule on Petitioner’s constitutional claims. Anderson v. Harless, 459 U.S. 4, 6

(1982). In most instances, a claim is exhausted once it is presented to a state’s highest court,

either on direct appeal or through state collateral proceedings.1

 See Sandgathe v. Maass, 314

F.3d 371, 376 (9th Cir. 2002). The constitutional claim raised in the federal proceedings must

be the same as that raised in the state proceedings. See Anderson, 459 U.S. at 6. Here, Petitioner

has not alleged exhaustion as to any claims he seeks to bring which are contained in his

Supplemental Brief in Support of First Amended Petition. 

For the foregoing reasons, this case is DISMISSED without prejudice and with leave to

amend. The Court directs Petitioner as follows:

(1) If Petitioner wishes to litigate the both the claims contained in his First Amended

Petition and the Supplemental Brief in Support of First Amended Petition, he must, no later

Case 3:08-cv-00274-JM-PCL Document 6 Filed 03/28/08 Page 2 of 5
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

K:\COMMON\CHMB_MIL\__SIGNED ORDERS\3 28 2008\08cv0274_options2_3 28 2008.wpd, 3288 -3- 08cv0274

than May 16, 2008, file a Second Amended Petition which contains all claims he wishes to

bring in this proceeding. 

(2) If Petitioner does seek to litigate the claims contained in the Supplemental Brief in

Support of First Amended petition, Petitioner is again cautioned that he must allege exhaustion

as to all claims in his petition. The claims in the Supplemental Brief in Support of First

Amended Petition appear to be unexhausted. Accordingly, Petitioner is reminded that he may

not simply include unexhausted claims in a Second Amended Petition, but rather he must choose

one of the following options:

PETITIONER’S OPTIONS

To avoid the Court dismissing the petition on its own accord, Petitioner may choose one

of the following options.

i) First Option: Demonstrate Exhaustion

Petitioner may file further papers with this Court to demonstrate that he has in fact

exhausted the claims the Court has determined are likely unexhausted. If Petitioner chooses this

option, his papers are due no later than May 16, 2008. Respondent may file a reply by June 2,

2008.

ii) Second Option: Voluntarily Dismiss the Petition

Petitioner may move to voluntarily dismiss his entire federal petition and return to state

court to exhaust his unexhausted claims. Petitioner may then file a new federal petition

containing only exhausted claims. See Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 510, 520-21 (1982) (stating

that a petitioner who files a mixed petition may dismiss his petition to “return[] to state court to

exhaust his claims”). If Petitioner chooses this second option, he must file a pleading with this

Court no later than May 16, 2008. Respondent may file a reply by June 2, 2008. 

Petitioner is cautioned that any new federal petition must be filed before expiration of the

one-year statute of limitations. Ordinarily, a petitioner has one year from when his conviction

became final to file his federal petition, unless he can show that statutory or equitable “tolling”

Case 3:08-cv-00274-JM-PCL Document 6 Filed 03/28/08 Page 3 of 5
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

 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (d) provides:

(1) A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to an application for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in

custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court. The limitation period shall run from the latest of--

(A) the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the

expiration of the time for seeking such review;

(B) the date on which the impediment to filing an application created by State action in violation

of the Constitution or laws of the United States is removed, if the applicant was prevented from filing by

such State action;

(C) the date on which the constitutional right asserted was initially recognized by the Supreme

Court, if the right has been newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactively applicable to

cases on collateral review; or

(D) the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or claims presented could have been

discovered through the exercise of due diligence.

(2) The time during which a properly filed application for State post-conviction or other collateral review

with respect to the pertinent judgement or claim is pending shall not be counted toward any period of

limitation under this subsection.

3

 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2) provides that a claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application under

§ 2254 shall be dismissed unless: 

(A) the applicant shows that the claim relies on a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases

on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable; or 

(B) (i) the factual predicate for the claim could not have been discovered previously through the exercise

of due diligence; and 

(ii) the facts underlying the claim, if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would be

sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable

factfinder would have found the applicant guilty of the underlying offense. 

K:\COMMON\CHMB_MIL\__SIGNED ORDERS\3 28 2008\08cv0274_options2_3 28 2008.wpd, 3288 -4- 08cv0274

applies. Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167, 176 (2001); 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).2 Filing a petition

in federal court does not stop the statute of limitations from running. Id. at 181-82; Frye v.

Hickman, 273 F.3d 1144, 1145-46 (9th Cir. 2001); 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).

iii) Third Option: Formally Abandon Unexhausted Claims

Petitioner may formally abandon his unexhausted claims and proceed with his exhausted

ones. See Rose, 455 U.S. at 510, 520-21 (stating that a petitioner who files a mixed petition may

“resubmit[] the habeas petition to present only exhausted claims”). If Petitioner chooses this

third option, he must file a pleading with this Court no later than May 16, 2008. Respondent

may file a reply by June 2, 2008.

Petitioner is cautioned that once he abandons his unexhausted claim, he may lose the

ability to ever raise them in federal court. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 488 (2000)

(stating that a court’s ruling on the merits of claims presented in a first § 2254 petition renders

any later petition successive); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (a)-(b).3

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:08-cv-00274-JM-PCL Document 6 Filed 03/28/08 Page 4 of 5
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

 Although the dismissal is “without prejudice,” Petitioner is again cautioned that any later federal petition may

be barred by the statute of limitations. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)-(2); see also footnote two of this Order.

K:\COMMON\CHMB_MIL\__SIGNED ORDERS\3 28 2008\08cv0274_options2_3 28 2008.wpd, 3288 -5- 08cv0274

iv) Fourth Option: File a Motion to Stay the Federal Proceedings

Petitioner may move to stay this federal proceeding while he returns to state court to

exhaust his unexhausted claims. See Jackson v. Roe, 425 F.3d 654, 660 (9th Cir. 2005)

(interpreting Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005) as permitting a district court to stay a mixed

petition while the petitioner returns to state court); Valerio v. Crawford, 306 F.3d. 742, 770-71

(9th Cir. 2002) (en banc); Calderon v. United States Dist. Ct. for the N. Dist. of Cal., 134 F.3d

981, 986-88 (9th Cir. 1998). If Petitioner chooses this fourth option, he must file a pleading with

this Court no later than May 16, 2008. Respondent may file a reply by June 2, 2008.

(3) If Petitioner seeks to litigate only the claims alleged in his First Amended Petition,

and does not seek to litigate the claims contained in the Supplemental Brief in Support of First

Amended Petition, he must advise the court no later than May 16, 2008 that he wishes to do

so. The Court will then review the First Amended Petition and direct a response from the

Respondent if it is appropriate. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DISMISSES this case without prejudice and with

leave to amend.4

 Petitioner is directed to comply with the Court’s Order as outlined above no

later than May 16, 2008 by either: (1) filing a Second Amended Petition which contains all

exhausted claims Petitioner wishes to bring, (2) choosing one of the four options outlined above

if any of the claims he wishes to bring in a Second Amended Petition are unexhausted, or (3)

notifying the Court that he wishes to proceed only with the exhausted claims presented in the

First Amended Petition.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 28, 2008

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

 United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-00274-JM-PCL Document 6 Filed 03/28/08 Page 5 of 5