Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01483/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01483-0/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 06cv1483 JM (WMc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRANK DERELL VAUGHN,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 06cv1483-JM (WMc)

REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION OF

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE

JUDGE RE: GRANTING IN PART

AND DENYING IN PART

PETITIONER’S MOTION TO

STAY AND TO AMEND

vs.

J.S. WOODFORD, DIRECTOR,

Respondent.

I.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On March 18, 2003, Frank Derell Vaughn (“Petitioner”) was convicted of one count of

robbery (CAL. PENAL CODE § 211), one count of second degree burglary (CAL. PENAL CODE §

459) and one count of kidnaping for purpose of robbery (CAL. PENAL CODE § 209(b)(1)). 

(Lodgment No. 3 at 251-54.) On January 30, 2004, Petitioner was sentenced to an indeterminate

term of life in prison and a consecutive five-year term. (Lodgment No. 3 at 251-54.) 

On April 28, 2005, the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One

denied Petitioner’s appeal. (Lodgment No. 7.) Thereafter, on July 27, 2005, the California

Supreme Court denied Petitioner’s Petition for Review. (Lodgment No. 9.) On January 12, 2006,

Case 3:06-cv-01483-JM-WMC Document 17 Filed 03/12/07 Page 1 of 6
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

 Petitioner’s motion was titled, “Petitioner’s Application for a 120-Day Stay of the

Proceedings While the State Court is Given a Full and Fair Opportunity to Review Petitioner’s New

Claims; Request to Amend the Petition; Affidavit in Support Therefore.” 

2

 Petitioner states appellate counsel eventually returned the evidence, but only after Petitioner

filed a complaint with the state bar. (Pet’s Mot. for Stay and Mot. to Amend. at 4.)

2 06cv1483 JM (WMc)

the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One denied Petitioner’s

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on the merits. (Lodgment No. 11.) 

On March 18, 2003, Frank Derell Vaugh (“Petitioner”) was convicted of one count of

robbery (CAL. PENAL CODE § 211), one count of second degree burglary (CAL. PENAL CODE §

459), and one count of kidnaping for purpose of robbery (CAL. PENAL CODE § 209(b)(1)). 

(Lodgment No. 3 at 251-54.) On January 30, 2004, Petitioner was sentenced to an indeterminate

term of life in prison and a consecutive five-year term. (Lodgment No. 3 at 251-54.) 

On July 24, 2006, Petitioner filed the instant Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in this

Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. [Doc. No. 1.] On January 8, 2007, Petitioner filed a Motion

for Stay and Abeyance1 of the federal proceedings for 120 days to allow the state court to review

two additional claims: (1) ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to present fingerprint

evidence to establish third party culpability; and (2) ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for

failing to raise an ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim. (Pet’s Mot. for Stay and Mot. to

Amend. at 2.) [Doc. No. 11.] 

Petitioner also requested leave to amend the instant petition to add these two additional

ineffective assistance of counsel claims. (Pet’s Mot. for Stay and Mot. to Amend. at 3.) Petitioner

argues he could not include these claims in his original petition because appellate counsel was in

possession of fingerprint evidence and refused to return it to him.2 (Pet’s Mot. for Stay and Mot.

to Amend. at 2-3.) Petitioner also requested leave to amend to cite federal authority in support of

the original claims. (Pet’s Mot. for Stay and Mot. to Amend. at 3.)

On January 10, 2007, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in the San

Diego Superior Court presenting the two ineffective assistance of counsel claims. (Lodgment No.

14.) On January 23, 2007, Respondent filed an Opposition to Petitioner’s Motion to Stay and

Case 3:06-cv-01483-JM-WMC Document 17 Filed 03/12/07 Page 2 of 6
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

 Petitioner raised the following two exhausted grounds in his original federal habeas petition:

(1) “Petitioner’s constitutional right not to be placed twice in jeopardy was violated”; and (2)

Petitioner[’s] conviction for robbery “violates Petitioner’s 5th and 14th constitutional rights under the

due process clause.” (Federal Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, pp. 6-7.) [Doc. No. 1]

4

 The approach used in Kelly and Taylor applies to federal petitions which contain only

exhausted claims, as in the present case. In contrast, the approach used in Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S.

269 (2005), applies to mixed federal petitions, i.e. those containing both exhausted and unexhausted

claims. See Jackson v. Roe, 425 F.3d 654, 661 (9th Cir. 2005) (“The two approaches are distinct:

Rhines applies to stays of mixed petitions, whereas the three-step procedure [in Kelly and Taylor]

applies to stays of fully exhausted petitions.”) (emphasis in original). 

3 06cv1483 JM (WMc)

Motion to Amend. [Doc No. 13.] Petitioner replied to Respondent’s opposition on February 13,

2007. [Doc. No. 16.]

II.

DISCUSSION

A. Exhaustion Requirement

The first issue the Court must address is whether Petitioner’s federal petition is mixed (i.e.,

contains both exhausted and unexhausted claims) or contains only fully exhausted claims. The

exhaustion of available state judicial remedies is generally a prerequisite to a federal court’s

consideration of claims presented in habeas corpus proceedings. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1); see Rose

v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 522 (1982). The two claims in Petitioner’s original petition were

presented to the California Supreme Court in his Petition for Review.3

 (Lodgment No. 8.) 

Accordingly, it is recommended that the Court find that the record demonstrates Petitioner’s

original petition is fully exhausted. 

B. Stay and Abey

In Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2003), the Ninth Circuit stated that a district

court must consider staying a fully exhausted federal petition to permit a petitioner to exhaust

other claims in state court before attempting to amend his federal petition to include the newly

exhausted claims.4 Kelly, 315 F.3d at 1070; see also Calderon v. United States Dist. Court

(Taylor), 134 F.3d 981, 984 (9th Cir. 1998). The district court has discretion to stay the federal

proceedings. Kelly, 315 F.3d at 1070; Taylor, 134 F.3d at 988.

Case 3:06-cv-01483-JM-WMC Document 17 Filed 03/12/07 Page 3 of 6
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

5

 The Kelly-Taylor approach differs from the Rhines approach, “which requires consideration

of issues such as whether petitioner has good cause for failure to exhaust before coming to federal

court and whether petitioner engaged in intentional dilatory litigation tactics.” Romero, 2006 WL

2460736 at *2. The Ninth Circuit left “for another day the question of whether the stay standard

announced by the Supreme Court in Rhines applies to our three-step stay-and-abeyance procedure.”

Jackson v. Roe, 425 F.3d at 661. Nevertheless, it appears that even under the Rhines standard,

Petitioner has not intentionally delayed in his quest to bring fingerprint evidence before the Court.

Moreover, Petitioner demonstrates good cause for his inability to present evidence at an earlier stage

because of appellate counsel’s refusal to timely return evidence. See Steele v. Ornoski, 2006 WL

2844123 at *8 (E.D. Cal.); Medina v. Woodford, 2006 WL 2844578 at *3 (N.D. Cal.) (explaining that

good cause exists to support a stay and abeyance where petitioner was prevented from raising a claim

due to “circumstances over which he had little or no control such as the actions of counsel.”). 

4 06cv1483 JM (WMc)

In Romero v. Runnels, No. CIV S-04-0459, 2006 WL 2460736 (E.D. Cal. 2006), the court

granted a motion for stay and abeyance of the federal proceedings pending exhaustion of new

claims in state court based on recently discovered DNA evidence. Romero, 2006 WL 2460736 at

*2. Applying the Ninth Circuit’s Kelly test, the court reasoned that a stay, followed by an

amendment of the federal petition, was warranted because: 1) the factual predicate of the new

claims was not available to the petitioner when he filed his federal petition, and 2) federal review

could be forfeited if the new claims were not included in the federal petition. Id. The court further

explained that granting a stay promoted the interests of comity by allowing the state court to

resolve the matter first and would also prevent successive petitions by enabling federal review of

all exhausted claims in one proceeding. Id. 

In the present case, it is recommended that the Court grant the requested stay. Petitioner

currently has a fully exhausted federal petition and two additional claims pending in a state

petition. Similar to the circumstances in Romero, Petitioner here did not have access to fingerprint

evidence supporting his two new claims until after he filed his federal petition.5

 A stay will

prevent successive petitions by enabling federal review of all exhausted claims in one proceeding

and further promote the interests of comity by allowing the state court the opportunity to resolve

the matter first. 

C. Motion to Amend

 Under the Kelly-Taylor approach, the petitioner may return to this Court following

exhaustion of his state claims and seek leave to amend the federal petition to include his newly

Case 3:06-cv-01483-JM-WMC Document 17 Filed 03/12/07 Page 4 of 6
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 5 06cv1483 JM (WMc)

exhausted claims. Kelly, 315 F.3d at 1070. After the state court has ruled on the new claim, the

parties can then litigate issues concerning amendment of the petition, including the issue of the

relation-back of claims. Romero, 2006 WL 2460736 at *2. Accordingly, Petitioner’s request to

amend the petition is premature. 

Petitioner also requests leave to amend his original petition to add federal authority. The

record demonstrates Petitioner has sufficiently cited federal authority. (Pet. at 6-7.) Specifically,

Petitioner alleges violations of his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights under the United States

Constitution on both Due Process and Double Jeopardy grounds. (Pet. at 6-7.) Therefore,

Petitioner’s request to amend the petition on this basis is moot. 

Accordingly, it is recommended that Petitioner’s Motion for Stay and Abeyance be

GRANTED, and that Petitioner’s Motion to Amend be DENIED as premature in part and moot in

part. It is further recommended that the parties be ordered to comply with the briefing schedule

presented below. 

III.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 

For the forgoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED:

1. The Court issue an Order GRANTING Petitioner’s Motion for Stay and Abeyance; 

2. The Court issue an Order DENYING Petitioner’s Motion to Amend without prejudice

as premature; 

3. These proceedings be stayed and consideration of the instant petition, containing only

exhausted claims, be held in abeyance pending exhaustion in state court of petitioner’s two new

claims;

4. Petitioner be directed to inform the Court in writing of the highest state court’s decision

with respect to his two new claims within 30 days of the decision; and 

5. Petitioner be directed to file a motion in this court to lift the stay and amend the petition

to include the his newly exhausted claims within 60 days of the highest state court’s decision. 

IT IS ORDERED that no later than April 16, 2007, any party to this action may file

Case 3:06-cv-01483-JM-WMC Document 17 Filed 03/12/07 Page 5 of 6
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 6

written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. The document should be

captioned, “Objections to the Report and Recommendation.” 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any reply to the objections shall be filed with the Court

and served on all parties no later than May l4, 2007. The parties are advised that failure to file

objections within the specified time may result in a waiver of the right to raise those objections on

appeal of the Court’s order. See Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); see also

Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 12, 2007

Hon. William McCurine, Jr.

U.S. Magistrate Judge

United States District Court

Copy to:

HONORABLE JEFFREY T. MILLER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

PRISONER PRO SE

ALL COUNSEL OF RECORD

Case 3:06-cv-01483-JM-WMC Document 17 Filed 03/12/07 Page 6 of 6