Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01991/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01991-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DEWAYNE PRESLEY,

Petitioner,

AMY MILLER,

Respondent.

No. 2:14-cv-1991 GEB GGH P

ORDER

By order of October 6, 2014, respondent was directed to file a response to the petition 

within sixty days. On October 1, 2014, petitioner filed a motion for stay and abeyance. That 

motion did not come to the court’s attention until after the service order was issued.

Petitioner states that all four claims in the current petition are exhausted; however, he is 

currently exhausting another claim in the state courts which he will later try to add on 

amendment. 

The United States Supreme Court has held that a federal district court may not entertain a 

petition for habeas corpus unless the petitioner has exhausted state remedies with respect to each 

of the claims raised. Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (1982). 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. 

Case 2:14-cv-01991-GEB-GGH Document 11 Filed 10/20/14 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

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). A state court has had an opportunity to rule on the merits of a 

claim when the petitioner has fairly presented that claim to that court. The fair presentation 

requirement is met where the petitioner has described the operative facts and legal theory on 

which his claim is based. Picard, 404 U.S. at 277-78. Generally, it is “not enough that all the 

facts necessary to support the federal claim were before the state courts . . . or that a somewhat 

similar state-law claim was made.” Anderson v. Harless, 459 U.S. 4, 6 (1982). Instead, 

[i]f state courts are to be given the opportunity to correct alleged 

violations of prisoners’ federal rights, they must surely be alerted to 

the fact that the prisoners are asserting claims under the United 

States Constitution. If a habeas petitioner wishes to claim that an 

evidentiary ruling at a state court trial denied him the due process of 

law guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, he must say so, not 

only in federal court, but in state court.

Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365 (1995). 

Petitioner has not specified the procedure he wishes to use in staying this action and 

exhausting the unexhausted claim.1 

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. 

Petitioner is informed that if he seeks a Rhines stay, he will have to file an amended 

petition which contains all his claims, including the additional unexhausted claim, as the Rhines

factors include some reflection on the merits of the unexhausted claim. Petitioner will also need 

 

1

Petitioner is cautioned that the habeas corpus statute imposes a one-year statute of limitations 

for filing non-capital habeas corpus petitions in federal court. In most cases, the one year period 

will start to run on the date on which the state court judgment became final by the conclusion of 

direct review or the expiration of time for seeking direct review, although the statute of 

limitations is tolled while a properly filed application for state post-conviction or other collateral 

review is pending. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).

Case 2:14-cv-01991-GEB-GGH Document 11 Filed 10/20/14 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

3

to file a renewed motion to stay under Rhines, which sets forth good cause for failure to have first 

exhausted all claims, that his claims potentially have merit, and that he has not been intentionally 

dilatory.

In the alternative, petitioner may proceed with a stay request as outlined in King v. Ryan, 

564 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 2009) citing Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2003). In King, the 

Ninth Circuit held that in addition to the stay procedure authorized in Rhines, district courts also 

have discretion to permit petitioners to follow the three-step stay-and-abeyance procedure 

approved in Calderon v. U.S. Dist. Ct. (Taylor), 134 F.3d 981, 986 (9th Cir. 1998) and Kelly v. 

Small, 315 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2003). Pursuant to the King procedure, (1) a petitioner amends his 

petition to delete any unexhausted claims; (2) the court stays and holds in abeyance the amended, 

fully exhausted petition, allowing the petitioner the opportunity to proceed to state court to 

exhaust the deleted claims; and (3) the petitioner later amends his petition and re-attaches the 

newly-exhausted claims to the original petition. Kelly, 315 F.3d at 1070-71. The King stay-andabeyance procedure has no requirement of a good cause showing or that the claims are potentially 

meritorious. However, no statute of limitations protection is imparted by such stay, nor are 

exhausted claims adjudicated during the pendency of such a stay.

If petitioner chooses to proceed with the King procedure, the petition currently on file is 

satisfactory; however, he will need to file a motion to stay, and specify that it is pursuant to King

and Kelly.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Petitioner’s motion for stay and abeyance, filed October 1, 2014, (ECF No. 7), is 

denied without prejudice to its refiling as set forth herein.

2. Within twenty-one (21) days of this order, petitioner shall file either: (a) an amended 

petition containing both exhausted and unexhausted claims, along with a motion to stay under

Rhines, setting forth good cause and other requirements; or (b) a motion to stay under Kelly.

Petitioner is cautioned that failure to respond to the instant order will result in the case proceeding 

on the current exhausted petition.

/////

Case 2:14-cv-01991-GEB-GGH Document 11 Filed 10/20/14 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

3. Within fourteen (14) days of the filing of any motion to stay, respondent shall file a 

response to petitioner’s motion to stay. Until the stay issue is adjudicated, and further order of the 

court, respondent need not make any response on the merits as previously ordered.

4. The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this order on Michael Patrick Farrell, 

Senior Assistant Attorney General.

Dated: October 20, 2014

 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:076/Pres1991.sta

Case 2:14-cv-01991-GEB-GGH Document 11 Filed 10/20/14 Page 4 of 4