Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-01530/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-01530-6/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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEVIN L. CARADINE,

Petitioner,

v.

SUZANNE M. PEERY, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No. 14-cv-01530-YGR (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE

This is a habeas case filed pro se by a state prisoner. The petition originally included four 

claims. On February 20, 2015, Respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition as a “mixed” petition 

containing both exhausted and unexhausted claims was granted because one of Petitioner’s claims 

(his prospective juror bias claim) was unexhausted. If the petition combines exhausted and 

unexhausted claims, then the United States Supreme Court, in Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 

(1982), requires dismissal of the entire habeas petition without reaching the merits of any of its 

claims. Guizar v. Estelle, 843 F.2d 371, 372 (9th Cir. 1988). However, instead of dismissing the 

petition, the Court directed Petitioner to elect between two courses of action within twenty-eight 

days, and he was cautioned that his failure to do so would result in the dismissal of this action 

without prejudice. Specifically, Petitioner was directed to either: (1) file an amended petition that 

includes only his three exhausted claims and strikes the remaining unexhausted prospective juror 

bias claim, or (2) file a request for a stay of this matter while he exhausts his unexhausted 

prospective juror bias claim in state court.

After being granted four extensions of time to respond to the Court’s February 20, 2015 

Order, Petitioner filed his Amended Petition. Dkt. 21. For the reasons discussed below, this case 

is DISMISSED without prejudice.

ANALYSIS

As noted, Petitioner presented four claims in his original petition including: (1) improper 

denial of his motion to sever; (2) the trial court erred when it refused to remove a prospective juror 

for cause; (3) improper exclusion of defense expert testimony, and (4) improper allowance of the 

Case 4:14-cv-01530-YGR Document 23 Filed 05/04/16 Page 1 of 2
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

jury’s consideration of May 18, 2004 murder as evidence of Petitioner’s intent to kill the victims 

of the January 23, 2004 shootings. The petition contained one unexhausted claim (his prospective 

juror bias claim – claim two) and three exhausted claims (claims one, three and four). As 

mentioned above, in its February 20, 2015 Order, the Court directed Petitioner to elect one of the 

following two options: (1) file an amended petition that includes only his three exhausted claims 

and strikes the remaining unexhausted prospective juror bias claim, or (2) file a request for a stay 

of this matter while he exhausts his unexhausted prospective juror bias claim in state court. 

Petitioner has filed an Amended Petition; however, he has included all four claims. Dkt. 

21. This is not one of Petitioner’s options because his second claim is not exhausted, and 

therefore may not remain in his federal petition. See Rose, 455 U.S. at 522; Guizar, 843 F.2d at 

372.

Petitioner has not elected either of the two options available to him. He has not indicated 

that he wants to request for a stay of this matter while he exhausts his unexhausted prospective 

juror bias claim in state court. He has also not followed the Court’s instructions for filing an 

amended petition with only exhausted claims. As explained above, the Amended Petition seeks to 

keep his unexhausted prospective juror bias claim. 

Petitioner was cautioned that this case would be dismissed if he did not elect one of the 

two options available to him. As he has failed to properly elect one of those options, this case will 

be DISMISSED without prejudice to Petitioner filing a new federal petition containing only 

unexhausted claims.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, this case is DISMISSED without prejudice to filing a new 

federal petition containing only exhausted claims. 

The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment, terminate any pending motions as moot, and 

close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 

 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

United States District Judge

May 4, 2016

Case 4:14-cv-01530-YGR Document 23 Filed 05/04/16 Page 2 of 2