Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-00950/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-00950-2/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

 Respondent asks that Tim Virga, the current warden of California State Prison, Sacramento 1

be substituted in for James Walker. “A petitioner for habeas corpus relief must name the state

officer having custody of him or her as the respondent to the petition. This person typically is the

warden of the facility in which the petitioner is incarcerated. Brittingham v. United States, 982 F.2d

378, 379 (9th Cir.1992).” Stanley v. California Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994)

(citing Rule 2(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254). The request is hereby granted.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ORVAL D. FLANNERY,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-10-0950 GGH P

vs.

TIM VIRGA, Warden, ORDER & 1

Respondent. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

By order, filed on June 1, 2010, respondent was directed to review the petition and

the pending motion to stay and to file a response to petitioner’s motion to stay. Respondent

sought an extension of time which was granted, and filed an opposition to the motion. 

As previously noted, petitioner raises three grounds in challenging his 2005

Amador County Superior Court conviction of petty theft with a prior (Cal. Penal Code § 666) and

under the three-strikes law (Cal. Penal Code § 667.5) for which he was sentenced to an

indeterminate term of 25 years to life. Petition, pp. 1-7. Petitioner concedes that ground three is

Case 2:10-cv-00950-MCE-AC Document 12 Filed 08/16/10 Page 1 of 6
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

2

unexhausted and asks that the petition be stayed pending state court exhaustion of that claim,

which he avers is pending in state court and on which he is therein currently proceeding with

counsel. See Motion to Stay (docket # 2), pp. 2. 

Petitioner’s claim three is a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel in violation

of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments “by defense counsel Fannon’s total neglect of the pleabargain opportunity in the case and related professional obligations.” Petition, p. 5. The

gravamen of this ground centers on a claim that petitioner was advised by defense counsel to

reject the People’s offer of a seven-year plea bargain and the five-year plea bargain suggested to

the parties by the trial judge. Motion, Exhibit A (pending state habeas petition), p. 16. 

Petitioner declares that he has the equivalent of a high school education, that he

does not have financial assets, that while his direct appeal was pending in the state court of

appeal before the ruling of March 14, 2008, he sought financial assistance from his family which

they were unable to provide. Motion, pp. 53-59, Declaration of petitioner, ¶¶ 1-3. Petitioner

avers he has no formal legal training, that his experience with habeas petitions first arose in 2008

in his pro se attempt at a collateral attack on his conviction, that he was sent for nine months to

the SHU (security housing unit) beginning February of 2008, due to a stand-off in which he was

involved. Id., at ¶¶ 4-5. Following the June 1, 2008, California Supreme Court denial of his

petition for review, petitioner received his trial transcripts in July of 2008 and began to review

them. Id., at ¶¶ 6-7. In the SHU, petitioner was only permitted one hour of law library a week,

for a total of about 16 hours during the period he was there; petitioner maintains he is an

especially slow reader when reading the law. Id., at ¶ 8. Petitioner was informed by an inmate

named Mario Navarro that the clock was running for filing a petition in state and federal court;

Inmate Navarro drafted a habeas petition for petitioner by hand, which petitioner mailed,

believing it imperative to do so immediately, to the Amador Superior Court in January of 2009,

after having had difficulty obtaining copies due to a prison transfer, a yard lockdown and a

voluminous appendix to the petition. Id., ¶¶ 9-13. Petitioner re-filed the petition in the court of

Case 2:10-cv-00950-MCE-AC Document 12 Filed 08/16/10 Page 2 of 6
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

3

appeal after it was denied on February 27, 2009, in the lower court; he filed it in the state

supreme court after the April 9, 2009, appellate court denial, where it was denied on November

10, 2009, Id., at ¶ 14. Thereafter, petitioner came to believe, after reading Strickland v.

Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S. Ct. 2052 (1984), despite assurances by fellow inmates that

Inmate Navarro had done a good job for him, that his prison writ writer had failed to show the

requisite prejudice. Id., at 15-16. With financial assistance from some friends in the American

Indian community, petitioner had his case evaluated by an attorney in San Francisco, Gary

Dubcoff in November of 2009; ultimately, petitioner could not afford his services so, after funds

remaining from the review were returned with other documents with a letter dated December 22,

2009, petitioner, in January, 2009, contacted an attorney named William Gilg, the counsel with

whom he is apparently proceeding now on his pending state habeas filing. Id., ¶¶ 19-21.

In Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 125 S.Ct. 1528 (2005), the United States

Supreme Court found that a stay and abeyance of a mixed federal petition should be available

only in the limited circumstance that good cause is shown for a failure to have first exhausted the

claims in state court, that the claim or claims at issue potentially have merit and that there has

been no indication that petitioner has been intentionally dilatory in pursuing the litigation. 

Rhines, supra, at 277-78, 125 S.Ct at 1535; Jackson v. Roe, 425 F.23d 654, 661 (9th Cir. 2005);

see also Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 514 U.S. 408, 416, 125 S.Ct. 1807 (2005) (prisoners may file a

“protective petition” in federal court asking the court to stay and abey the federal proceedings

until state remedies are exhausted.

Rhines does not go into detail as to what constitutes good cause for failure to

exhaust, and the Ninth Circuit has provided no clear guidance beyond holding that the test is less

stringent than an “extraordinary circumstances” standard. Jackson v. Roe, supra, 425 F.3d at

661-62. Several district courts have concluded that the standard is more generous than the

showing needed for “cause” to excuse a procedural default. See, e.g., Rhines v. Weber, 408

F.Supp.2d 844, 849 (D.S.D. 2005) (applying the Supreme Court’s mandate on remand). This

Case 2:10-cv-00950-MCE-AC Document 12 Filed 08/16/10 Page 3 of 6
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

4

view finds support in Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 125 S.Ct. 1807 (2005) where the

Supreme Court acknowledged that a petitioner’s “reasonable confusion” about the timeliness of

his federal petition would generally constitute good cause for his failure to exhaust state remedies

before filing his federal petition. 544 U.S. at 416-17, 125 S.Ct. 1807. 

Respondent is correct that the Ninth Circuit in Wooten v. Kirkland, 540 F.3d 1019

(9th Cir. 2008), found that petitioner’s claim that he was “under the impression” that his counsel

had raised all the issues before the state court of appeal did not constitute good cause for failure

to exhaust (Opposition (Opp.), pp. 4-5), and the undersigned is bound to agree that generally

good cause cannot be based on mere ignorance of the law because such a finding “would render

stay-and-abey orders routine” and thus, “would run afoul of Rhines and its instruction that

district courts should only stay mixed petitions in “limited circumstances.” Wooten, 540 F.3d at

1024. Respondent also argues that a petitioner pro se’s reliance upon the incompetence of

jailhouse lawyers does not constitute cause, citing Tacho v. Martinez, 862 F.2d 1376, 1378 (9th

Cir. 1988) and that the illiteracy of a petitioner and lack of assistance has also been found to be

insufficient, citing Hughes v. Idaho State Board of Corrections, 800 F.2d 905, 909 (9th Cir.

1986). Opp., p. 5. Both of these cases, however, speak to a failure to show cause in the context

of the “cause and prejudice” standard applied with regard to a procedural default, applicable in a

narrow, “exceptional circumstances” context. See, e.g. Hughes, supra, at 909. In this instance,

there is as yet no procedural default ruling.

Respondent also notes (Opp., pp. 5-6), among several district court decisions, that

in Pittman v. Hense, No. CV 09-5044-VAP (RNB), 2009 WL 4348428 * 3(C.D.Cal. Dec.1,

2009), the court found that “if a pro se habeas petitioner’s lack of legal training, difficulty in

obtaining facts while incarcerated, lack of legal resources, and/or lack of knowledge of the law

and his options were sufficient to satisfy Rhines’ s ‘good cause’ requirement, the Supreme

Court’s observation in Rhines that ‘stay and abeyance should be available only in limited

circumstances’ would be eviscerated....”

Case 2:10-cv-00950-MCE-AC Document 12 Filed 08/16/10 Page 4 of 6
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

5

In Wooten, the Ninth Circuit recognized that Jackson, supra, had stated to meet

the Rhines good cause standard for failure to exhaust did not require a showing of “extraordinary

circumstances.” Wooten, 540 F.3d at 1023-24. This court finds, in this instance in the

combination of circumstances described, that petitioner, who evidently has a state court

exhaustion petition now pending and had one prior to filing this petition, along with his motion

to stay, has shown sufficient cause to meet the “good cause” standard under Rhines. Moreover,

the court finds that the petitioner’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel with regard to his

initial trial counsel’s alleged advice to reject a seven-year plea offer while petitioner is now

instead serving a 25-year-to-life is not on the face of it “plainly meritless”; nor does it appear that

petitioner engaged in intentionally dilatory litigation tactics. Rhines, supra, at 277-278, 125 S.

Ct. at 1535. Therefore, 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk of the Court is to randomly assign a district judge to this case; and

2. The Clerk of the Court is also directed to substitute the name of Tim Virga for

that of James Walker as respondent in the docket of this case. 

IT IS RECOMMENDED that:

1. Petitioner’s motion for a stay under Rhines, supra, filed on April 14, 2010

(docket # 2), be granted, pending exhaustion of claim three; and 

2. Petitioner be directed to inform this court and file a request to lift the stay

within twenty-eight days of a decision by the California Supreme Court concluding state court

habeas review. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

Case 2:10-cv-00950-MCE-AC Document 12 Filed 08/16/10 Page 5 of 6
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

6

shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The parties are

advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the

District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: August 16, 2010 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009

flan0950.ofr

Case 2:10-cv-00950-MCE-AC Document 12 Filed 08/16/10 Page 6 of 6