Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01751/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01751-5/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDWARD RAY MCKINNEY,

Petitioner,

v.

CARL WOFFORD,

Respondent.

1:14-cv-01751-SAB-HC

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S 

MOTION FOR STAY AND ABEYANCE 

(ECF No. 38)

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

(ECF No. 39)

Petitioner is a state prisoner who had filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On July 27, 2015, the Court granted Respondent’s motion to dismiss, 

dismissed the petition for failure to exhaust state remedies, and declined to issue a certificate of 

appealability. (ECF No. 36). On July 27, 2015, judgment was entered and the case was closed. 

(ECF No. 37). 

On August 6, 2015, Petitioner filed a motion for stay and abeyance so that he can exhaust 

his state court remedies. (ECF No. 38). As the Court had already dismissed the petition and 

closed the action before Petitioner filed his motion for stay and abeyance, the motion is moot. 

Furthermore, the motion is meritless. Petitioner requests that the Court stay his petition until he 

exhausts his claims. Under these circumstances, the Court could not have stayed a completely 

unexhausted petition. The Court cannot consider a petition that is entirely unexhausted. See

Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 521-22 (1989). A district court has the power to stay a petition 

that contains both exhausted and unexhausted claims. See Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 

Case 1:14-cv-01751-SAB Document 40 Filed 08/14/15 Page 1 of 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

2

(2005); Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063, 1070, (9th Cir. 2004). However, a district court has no 

power to entertain or stay a totally unexhausted petition. Rose, 455 U.S. at 52-22. Because the 

Court cannot consider an unexhausted petition, it also cannot stay an unexhausted petition. 

Therefore, Petitioner’s motion for a stay is meritless. 

On August 6, 2015, Petitioner filed objections to the Court’s order granting Respondent’s 

motion to dismiss and dismissing the petition without prejudice. (ECF No. 39). It appears that 

Petitioner has mistaken the final order and judgment entered in this matter to be a findings and 

recommendation by the undersigned. The Court will construe Petitioner’s objections as a motion 

for reconsideration.

A petitioner may file a motion for reconsideration of a final judgment, and the motion 

may be treated as a motion to alter or amend the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

59(e) or as a motion for relief from judgment or order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

60(b). Rule 59(e) provides that “[a] motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later 

than 28 days after the entry of the judgment.” Judgment was entered on July 27, 2015, so 

Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration is a timely Rule 59 motion. However, Petitioner’s 

arguments do not merit reconsideration of the dismissal. 

Petitioner argues that he exhausted his claims. However, to exhaust a federal claim, the 

claim must be fairly presented to the state’s highest court. See O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 

838, 845 (1999); Garrison v. McCarthy, 653 F.2d 374, 376 (9th Cir. 1981) (petitioner must 

present his claims “to the highest available state court on direct appeal or through state collateral 

review”). 

Petitioner’s filings in the California Supreme Court did not provide a full and fair 

opportunity for the state’s highest court to review the claims. Petitioner’s August 18, 2013 

petition was denied by the California Supreme Court with citations to People v. Duvall, 9 Cal.4th 

464, 474 (1995), and In re Swain, 34 Cal.2d 300, 204 (1949). (LD 16). These two case citations 

indicate that Petitioner did not allege facts warranting habeas relief with sufficient particularity

and the deficiency could have been cured. Petitioner had the option to plead his claims with 

greater particularity in the California Supreme Court after the November 13, 2013 order. There 

Case 1:14-cv-01751-SAB Document 40 Filed 08/14/15 Page 2 of 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

3

is no indication that Petitioner could not have cured the deficiency. Petitioner argues that he 

actually did properly present his claims to the California Supreme Court. However, upon a 

review of the petition submitted to the California Supreme Court, this Court finds that the federal 

claims were not properly presented to the state’s highest court. Therefore, the August 18, 2013 

petition did not provide the California Supreme Court with a fair and full opportunity to review 

Petitioner’s claims and the petition is unexhausted. 

Petitioner did not properly file his other two submissions to the California Supreme 

Court. Petitioner’s petition for review that was submitted to the California Supreme Court on 

August 5, 2013, was returned unfiled to him on August 6, 2013, because the state’s highest court 

was without jurisdiction to hear the petition. (ECF No. 20 at 35). Petitioner’s October 31, 2013 

review petition was submitted in a letter to the California Supreme Court two months after he 

filed his August 18, 2013 habeas action and was marked docketed on November 8, 2013, but was 

not filed. (LD 15). Therefore, these two petitions for review did not provide the California 

Supreme Court with a full and fair opportunity to review Petitioner’s claims. Thus, the Court 

correctly determined that Petitioner’s petition was completely unexhausted and dismissed the 

petition without prejudice. The motion for reconsideration must be denied.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s motion for stay and abeyance (ECF No. 38) is DENIED; 

2. Petitioner’s objections (ECF No. 39) are construed as a motion for 

reconsideration; and

3. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 39) is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 13, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01751-SAB Document 40 Filed 08/14/15 Page 3 of 3