Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-04759/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-04759-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EUREKA DIVISON

DANIEL LLOYD HOWARD,

Petitioner,

v.

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF 

CALIFORNIA,

Respondent.

Case No. 16-cv-4759-RMI (PR) 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION

Dkt. No. 25

Petitioner, a California prisoner, proceeds with a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The petition was stayed so petitioner could exhaust further claims. 

BACKGROUND

Petitioner was found guilty of one count of first degree murder, one count of conspiracy to 

commit murder, two counts of attempted murder, one count of criminal threats, and one count of 

kidnapping. People v. Howard, No. A139179, 2015 WL 7736634, at *1 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 30, 

2015). The California Court of Appeal affirmed the two counts of attempted murder, the count of 

criminal threats, and the kidnapping count. Id. at 24. The court reversed the first degree murder 

and the conspiracy to commit murder convictions. Id. The court stated that if the prosecution 

elects not to retry the first degree murder charge, the judgment will be modified to be a second 

degree murder conviction. The case was remanded to the trial court to either retry the charges or 

modify the judgment. Id. The California Supreme Court denied the petition for review on March 

9, 2016. It is not clear if petitioner will be retried on the murder and conspiracy counts.

Case 4:16-cv-04759-YGR Document 26 Filed 06/06/18 Page 1 of 3
2

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

DISCUSSION

Standard of Review

This court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus "in behalf of a person in 

custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in 

violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Rose v. 

Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). Habeas corpus petitions must meet heightened pleading 

requirements. McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994). An application for a federal writ of 

habeas corpus filed by a prisoner who is in state custody pursuant to a judgment of a state court 

must “specify all the grounds for relief available to the petitioner . . . [and] state the facts 

supporting each ground.” Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. 

“‘[N]otice’ pleading is not sufficient, for the petition is expected to state facts that point to a ‘real 

possibility of constitutional error.’” Rule 4 Advisory Committee Notes (quoting Aubut v. Maine, 

431 F.2d 688, 689 (1st Cir. 1970)). 

Legal Claims

The court previously denied petitioner’s motion to lift the stay. Petitioner stated that on 

two separate occasions he submitted petitions to the California Supreme Court, but he never 

received confirmation that his petitions were filed. Petitioner argued that he has exhausted his 

claims due to the California Supreme Court’s unresponsiveness. The court found that argument 

unavailing and noted that petitioner was required to present his claims to the California Supreme 

Court in order to exhaust the claims. 

The court provided petitioner with several options. He could provide more information 

such as any California Supreme Court docket numbers or inform the court if he filed cases using a 

different name. Petitioner was also provided the option to elect to voluntarily dismiss the 

unexhausted claims and the case will continue on the exhausted claim or claims. Or petitioner 

could continue to exhaust these claims in state court and the stay will continue. Petitioner has 

provided a response.

Petitioner provides a copy of his prison mail log. While it includes filings sent to this 

court, various superior courts, the California Appeals Court, the California State Bar and several 

Case 4:16-cv-04759-YGR Document 26 Filed 06/06/18 Page 2 of 3
3

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

other organizations, it does not reflect any mailings to the California Supreme Court. It remains 

unclear if petitioner has submitted any filings to the California Supreme Court. Petitioner has also 

requested that the stay be continued. 

CONCLUSION

1. Petitioner’s motion (Docket No. 25) is GRANTED and the stay continues. If petitioner 

is not granted relief in state court, he may return to this court and ask that the stay be lifted. 

2. The stay is subject to the following conditions: 

(1) Petitioner must diligently pursue his state court habeas proceedings; and 

(2) Petitioner must notify this court within thirty days after the state courts have completed 

their review of his claim or after they have refused review of his claims. 

If either condition of the stay is not satisfied, this Court may vacate the stay and act on this 

petition. See Rhines v. Webber, 544 U.S. 269, 278 (2005) (district court must effectuate timeliness 

concerns of AEDPA by placing “reasonable limits on a petitioner’s trip to state court and back.”).

3. Petitioner must keep the court informed of any change of address and must comply with 

the court's orders in a timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for 

failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). See Martinez v. Johnson, 

104 F.3d 769, 772 (5th Cir. 1997) (Rule 41(b) applicable in habeas cases).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 6, 2018

________________________

ROBERT M. ILLMAN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:16-cv-04759-YGR Document 26 Filed 06/06/18 Page 3 of 3