Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01863/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01863-5/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

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding in propria persona with a petition for writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The instant petition was filed on November 18, 2013 raising nine claims challenging 

Petitioner’s 2011 conviction in the Tulare County Superior Court of second degree murder and 

subsequent sentence of forty years to life. (Doc. 1). On November 20, 2013, the Court ordered 

Respondent to file a response to the petition within sixty days. (Doc. 4). After requesting and 

receiving an extension of time, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition, contending that two

of the claims in the petition were unexhausted. (Doc. 12). Respondent argued that should Petitioner 

fail to withdraw those unexhausted claims, the Court should dismiss the petition. (Id.). Petitioner did

RODNEY ZAYAS,

 Petitioner,

v.

KAMALA D. HARRIS, et al.,

Respondents.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:13-cv-01863-LJO-JLT

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S MOTION 

FOR TO FILE AMENDED PETITION 

CONTAINING NEWLY EXHAUSTED CLAIMS

(Doc. 24)

ORDER LIFTING STAY GRANTED AUGUST 29, 

2014 (Doc. 22)

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR 

EVIDENTIARY HEARING (Doc. 24)

Case 1:13-cv-01863-DAD-JLT Document 25 Filed 12/11/14 Page 1 of 4
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

not file an opposition to the motion to dismiss. Accordingly, and in order to avoid the harsh result of 

having to dismiss the entire petition, the Court granted Petitioner leave to withdraw the two 

unexhausted claims in lieu of dismissal. (Doc. 15). 

On June 2, 2014, Petitioner filed two motions. The first requested that the two unexhausted 

claims be withdrawn. (Doc. 16). The second criticized this Court for failing to allow Petitioner to 

stay proceedings in order to exhaust the unexhausted claims, even though Petitioner had never filed 

with the Court a request for issuance of a stay. (Doc. 17). The latter motion also indicated that 

Petitioner should be permitted to show good cause why a mixed petition should be stayed. (Id.). On 

July 23, 2014, Petitioner filed a motion to stay proceedings pursuant to Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 

(2005), contending implicitly that “good cause” exists for granting the stay. (Doc. 19). 

On August 8, 2014, Respondent filed an opposition to Petitioner’s motion for stay of 

proceedings, contending that, pursuant to Rhines, a petitioner requesting a stay must show good cause 

and that Petitioner has failed to meet that requirement because lack of knowledge of the legal system 

or ignorance does not constitute "good “cause.” (Doc. 20). Petitioner filed a reply on August 22, 

2014, arguing that he has shown good cause, that the unexhausted grounds are meritorious, and that he 

should be allowed to exhaust those claims pursuant to a Rhines stay. (Doc. 21).

On August 29, 2014, the Court granted Petitioner’s motion for a stay of proceedings and also 

granted his motion to withdraw the two unexhausted claims in order to exhaust them in state court. 

(Doc. 22). On December 4, 2014, Petitioner filed the instant motion to amend, indicating that the two 

claims were now exhausted and that he wished to file an amended petition containing the original 

claims as well as the newly-exhausted claims. (Doc. 24). Petitioner also requests an evidentiary 

hearing. (Id.). 

DISCUSSION

The Court’s August 29, 2014 order articulated the legal process whereby Petitioner could 

exhaust the two unexhausted claims and then include them in an amended petition. (Doc. 22). 

Petitioner has fully complied with the Court’s requirements for doing so by exhausting his 

unexhausted claims and, now, by filing a motion to file an amended petition containing those newlyexhausted claims. Accordingly, the Court will grant Petitioner’s motion to amend and afford him 

Case 1:13-cv-01863-DAD-JLT Document 25 Filed 12/11/14 Page 2 of 4
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

thirty days within which to do so.

The decision to grant an evidentiary hearing is generally a matter left to the sound discretion of 

the district courts. 28 U.S.C. § 2254; Habeas Rule 8(a); Schriro v. Landrigan, 550 U.S. 465, 473, 127 

S.Ct. 1933, 167 L.Ed.2d 836 (2007). To obtain an evidentiary hearing in federal court under the 

AEDPA, a petitioner must allege a colorable claim by alleging disputed facts which, if proved, would 

entitle him to relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). Schriro, 550 U.S. at 474. In analyzing a claim 

pursuant to § 2254(d)(1), a federal court is limited to the record that was before the state court that 

adjudicated the claim on the merits. Cullen v. Pinholster, –––U.S. ––––, ––––, 131 S.Ct. 1388, 1398, 

179 L.Ed.2d 557 (2011). Thus, when a state court record precludes habeas relief under the limitations 

set forth in § 2254(d), a district court is not required to hold an evidentiary hearing. Cullen v. 

Pinholster, 131 S.Ct. at 1399 (citing Schriro, 550 U.S. at 474)). Indeed, following Pinholster, it is 

difficult to envision any scenario in which an evidentiary hearing would ever be appropriate in a §

2254 proceeding, since that case limits this Court’s habeas review to facts already determined in state 

court. Accordingly, pursuant to Pinholster, the Court will deny without prejudice Petitioner’s motion 

for an evidentiary hearing.

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s motion to file an amended petition (Doc. 24), is GRANTED;

2. Petitioner’s motion for an evidentiary hearing (Doc. 24), is DENIED; 

3. The stay order granted August 29, 2014 (Doc. 22), is VACATED;

4. Petitioner is DIRECTED to file his amended petition within thirty days of the date 

of service of this order. That amended petition will supersede the original petition, 

which will have no further legal effect in these proceedings. 

///

///

///

///

///

Case 1:13-cv-01863-DAD-JLT Document 25 Filed 12/11/14 Page 3 of 4
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

Petitioner’s failure to comply with the Court’s order may result in a recommendation that the 

petition be dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 10, 2014 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01863-DAD-JLT Document 25 Filed 12/11/14 Page 4 of 4