Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_00-cv-01865/USCOURTS-cand-3_00-cv-01865-1/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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHNEL M. BAILEY,

Petitioner,

 v.

ANNE M. RAMIREZ, Warden,

Respondent /

No. C-00-1865 MMC

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND

PETITION AND/OR FOR ABEYANCE OF

PROCEEDINGS

(Docket No. 82)

Before the Court is petitioner Johnel M. Bailey’s motion, filed December 23, 2005,

for leave to file an amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus, and for an order staying

the instant action to allow exhaustion of previously unexhausted claims in state court. 

Respondent Anne M. Ramirez has filed opposition to the motion, to which petitioner has

filed a reply. Having considered the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the

motion, the Court rules as follows. 

BACKGROUND

In 1996, petitioner was convicted of second degree murder with use of a firearm and 

sentenced to 19 years to life. (See Amended Petition at 2.) In 1997, the California Court of

Appeal affirmed petitioner’s conviction and the California Supreme Court subsequently

denied review. (See id. at 3.) Thereafter, petitioner filed four habeas petitions in state

court. See Bailey v. Ramirez, 25 Fed. Appx. 661, 662 (9th Cir. 2002). The California

Supreme Court denied the last of petitioner’s four state habeas petitions in 2000. (See

Case 3:00-cv-01865-MMC Document 87 Filed 02/27/06 Page 1 of 5
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

Amended Petition at 5.) 

On May 24, 2000, petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal

court. On December 21, 2000, the Court dismissed the petition as untimely. On appeal,

the Ninth Circuit reversed, based on intervening case law, and remanded the matter for

further proceedings. See Bailey v. Ramirez, 25 Fed. Appx. at 662. 

On November 12, 2002, petitioner filed an amended petition, and, on June 17, 2003,

the Court issued an order to show cause. Respondent filed an answer to the amended

petition on September 12, 2003, to which petitioner filed a traverse on December 29, 2003. 

Thereafter, petitioner obtained counsel, and the Court granted petitioner’s motion to stay

further proceedings until September 15, 2005, to afford counsel time to review the

transcript of petitioner’s trial and to determine whether to seek to amend the petition and/or

traverse. 

On December 23, 2005, petitioner filed the instant motion for leave to amend his

petition to add new claims of instructional error, and to delete “several” unspecified “issues

raised in the petition which [he] believe[s] will not succeed.” (See Motion at 2.) Petitioner

further seeks an order staying the instant action so that petitioner may return to state court

to exhaust the new claims he seeks to include in his amended petition. Respondent

opposes the motion on the ground the new claims are time-barred.

LEGAL STANDARDS

A. Amendment 

Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs amendments to civil

pleadings and is applicable to habeas proceedings. See Mayle v. Felix, 125 S. Ct. 2562,

2569 (2005). Where, as here, a responsive pleading has been filed, a party may amend its

pleading only by leave of court or by written consent of the adverse party. See Fed. R Civ.

P. 15(a). Leave to amend “shall be freely given when justice so requires.” See id.

B. Limitations Period

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”) imposes a

one-year limitations period on petitions for writs of habeas corpus filed by state prisoners. 

Case 3:00-cv-01865-MMC Document 87 Filed 02/27/06 Page 2 of 5
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

See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). In particular, AEDPA provides that a state prisoner must file a

petition for a writ of habeas corpus within one year of the date on which the judgment

became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking

such review. See id. The statute of limitations is tolled during the pendency of applications

for state post-conviction or other collateral review. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2). The

limitations period is not tolled, however, while a petition for a writ of habeas corpus is

pending in federal court. See Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167, 180-81 (2001). 

C. Relation Back

Amendments to a pleading made after the statute of limitations has run relate back

to the date of the original pleading if “the claim or defense asserted in the amended

pleading arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth or attempted to be

set forth in the original pleading.” See Fed. R. Civ. P 15(c)(2). The Supreme Court has

rejected the contention that amendments to a habeas petition relate back to the date of the

original petition solely because the new claim stems from the habeas petitioner’s trial,

conviction, or sentence. See Mayle, 125 S. Ct. at 2569-75. Because Rule 2(c) of the

Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases requires a petitioner to “specify all the grounds for

relief available to the petitioner,” and to “state the facts supporting each ground,” each

“separate congeries of facts supporting the grounds for relief” delineates a separate

“occurrence” for purposes of Rule 15(c)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See id.

at 2573. Where “the original and amended petitions state claims that are tied to a common

core of operative facts, relation back will be in order.” See id. at 2574.

DISCUSSION 

A. Petitioner’s New Claims Do Not Relate Back

Petitioner seeks to amend his petition to include claims that two assertedly

erroneous jury instructions deprived him of his constitutional right to due process of law and

to a fair trial. (See Motion at 2.) In particular, petitioner contends (1) the trial court

erroneously shifted the burden of proof to him by instructing the jury that it could not

consider convicting him of the lesser charge of voluntary manslaughter unless it determined

Case 3:00-cv-01865-MMC Document 87 Filed 02/27/06 Page 3 of 5
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

beyond a reasonable doubt that he was not guilty of murder; and (2) the trial court

erroneously instructed the jury that the lesser charge of voluntary manslaughter required

that the petitioner have an intent to kill. (See id.) 

Respondent argues that leave to amend should be denied because the new claims

petitioner seeks to add to his petition do not relate back to the date of his original petition

and thus are time-barred.

Petitioner asserts five claims in his current petition: (1) denial of his right to counsel

at a critical stage of the proceedings, specifically, by the trial court’s releasing an

uncooperative witness on his own recognizance, outside the presence of defense counsel;

(2) denial of his Fifth Amendment right to confront and cross-examine witnesses against

him, specifically, by the trial court’s admission of a witness’s preliminary hearing testimony;

(3) ineffective assistance of counsel at trial, specifically, the failure of petitioner’s attorney to

investigate and secure defense witnesses; (4) ineffective assistance of counsel at

petitioner’s juvenile fitness hearing, specifically, counsel’s failure to investigate and submit

mitigating evidence; and (5) ineffective assistance of counsel on appeal, specifically,

appellate counsel’s failure to raise the above-referenced instances of ineffective assistance

of counsel who represented petitioner in the trial and juvenile courts. (See Amended

Petition at 6-7; Traverse at 14. )

As none of petitioner’s previously-asserted claims involves erroneous jury

instructions, petitioner’s new claims, which are based on instructional error, do not share a

“common core of operative facts” with his previously asserted claims. See Mayle, 125

S.Ct. at 2573 (noting Confrontation Clause claim based on admission of videotape

testimony of prosecution witness and Fifth Amendment claim based on admission of

coerced statements to police are based on “separate congeries of facts” and thus are

separate “occurrences” for purposes of Rule 15(c)(2)). 

Accordingly, the new claims petitioner seeks leave to add to his petition do not relate

back to the filing date of his original petition, and, consequently, are time-barred pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).

Case 3:00-cv-01865-MMC Document 87 Filed 02/27/06 Page 4 of 5
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

B. A Stay Is Unwarranted

Because petitioner’s new claims are time-barred, a stay of the instant action to

permit petitioner to exhaust his new claims in state court is not warranted. The Supreme

Court has held that a “district court would abuse its discretion if it were to grant [a habeas

petitioner] a stay when his unexhausted claims are plainly meritless.” See Rhines v.

Weber, 125 S. Ct. 1528, 1535 (2005). Because petitioner’s unexhausted claims are timebarred, there is no basis for staying the instant action to allow petitioner to exhaust such

claims in state court.

C. Leave to Withdraw Previously-Asserted Claims

Petitioner states that he wishes to amend his petition to delete unspecified claims

that he “believes will not succeed.” (See Motion at 2.) Respondent has not opposed this

portion of petitioner’s motion, and the Court perceives no reason why petitioner should not

be permitted to withdraw previously-asserted claims. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above: 

1. Petitioner’s motion for leave to amend his petition to assert previouslyunexhausted claims, and to stay the instant action pending exhaustion of said claims in

state court, is hereby DENIED.

2. Petitioner’s request to delete unspecified claims is GRANTED. No later than 30

days from the date of this order, petitioner shall, at his option, file either (1) an amended

petition, deleting the claims on which he no longer wishes to proceed, or (2) a notice of

withdrawal of the claims he no longer wishes to assert. If petitioner chooses to file an

amended petition, no other amendment shall be made absent specific leave of court.

This order terminates Docket No. 82. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 27, 2006 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:00-cv-01865-MMC Document 87 Filed 02/27/06 Page 5 of 5