Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01991/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01991-4/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIE BOLTON, 

Petitioner, No. CIV-S-05-1991 RRB KJM P 

vs.

D.L. RUNNELS, ORDER AND

Respondent. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Petitioner is a California prisoner proceeding pro se with an application for writ of

habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On November 21, 2006, the court ordered respondent to

file a response to petitioner’s December 22, 2005 amended petition. On January 18, 2007,

respondent filed a motion to dismiss in which respondent asserts that petitioner has not exhausted

state court remedies with respect to all of his claims. 

The exhaustion of state court remedies is a prerequisite to the granting of a

petition for writ of habeas corpus. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). A petitioner satisfies the exhaustion

requirement by providing the highest state court with a full and fair opportunity to consider all

claims before presenting them to the federal court. Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276 (1971);

Middleton v. Cupp, 768 F.2d 1083, 1086 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 478 U.S. 1021 (1986). 

/////

Case 2:05-cv-01991-JKS-CHS Document 23 Filed 08/27/07 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

2

The record before the court reveals that petitioner has not exhausted state court

remedies with respect to claims 2 through 4 identified in his amended petition. The failure to

exhaust claims 3 and 4, based on alleged failures to disclose evidence, is clear from a comparison

of the federal petition with the petition for review submitted to the California Supreme Court.

While claim 2 in the federal petition is entitled “Denial of Marsden Motion” and thus bears

similarities to an argument made to the state court, the focus of the federal claim is on the

resulting ineffectiveness of a second attorney appointed to assist with DNA evidence at trial,

whereas the focus of the state claim was the ineffectiveness of lead trial counsel. Cf. Am. Pet. at

5-6 with Lodged Doc. 6 (Pet. for Review filed in California Supreme Court) at 6-15. Therefore,

petitioner’s habeas petition is “mixed” in that it contains both exhausted and unexhausted claims.

In response to respondent’s motion, petitioner has filed a motion asking that his

amended petition be stayed so that he may exhaust state court remedies with respect to his

claims. In Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 125 S.Ct. 1528, 1535 (2005), the Supreme Court

recognized the district court’s authority to stay a mixed petition for writ of habeas corpus in

limited circumstances if the court finds good cause for petitioner’s failure to exhaust earlier and

merit to the claims petitioner is seeking to exhaust. Petitioner argues generally that he does not

have access to the help he needs at his current prison, High Desert, because he is unable to ask

for help without putting himself at risk given his sex offender status. Opp’n at 1-2. Petitioner’s

spare, conclusory argument does not establish good cause for his failure to exhaust earlier. 

Therefore his request for a stay should be denied.

Petitioner has filed a request for the appointment of counsel. There currently

exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See Nevius v. Sumner,

105 F.3d 453, 460 (9th Cir. 1996). However, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A authorizes the appointment of

counsel at any stage of the case “if the interests of justice so require.” See Rule 8(c), Fed. R.

Governing § 2254 Cases. In the present case, the court does not find that the interests of justice

would be served by the appointment of counsel at the present time. 

Case 2:05-cv-01991-JKS-CHS Document 23 Filed 08/27/07 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

 The second amended petition is generally the same as the first amended petition with a 1

few minor changes. It is not clear why petitioner submitted the second amended petition.

3

Finally, the court notes that on June 4, 2007, petitioner filed a second amended

petition for writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner did not seek leave to file a second amended petition

or accompany his second amended petition with an explanation as to why amendment is 

appropriate. For these reasons, the court will order that the June 4, 2007 second amended

petition be stricken.1

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s June 4, 2007 motion for the appointment of counsel is denied.

2. The second amended petition for writ of habeas corpus filed by petitioner on

June 4, 2007 is stricken from the record.

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Respondent’s January 18, 2007 motion to dismiss be granted.

2. Claims 2-4 appearing in petitioner’s December 22, 2005 amended petition for

writ of habeas corpus be dismissed.

3. Petitioner’s June 4, 2007 request for a stay be denied.

4. Respondent be ordered to file his answer to claim 1 in petitioner’s amended

application for writ of habeas corpus within twenty days of any order adopting the foregoing

findings and recommendations.

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 twenty

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

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

/////

Case 2:05-cv-01991-JKS-CHS Document 23 Filed 08/27/07 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

4

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 24, 2007.

1

bolt1991.157

Case 2:05-cv-01991-JKS-CHS Document 23 Filed 08/27/07 Page 4 of 4