Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00049/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00049-2/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 January 11, 2013. After a preliminary review of the petition 

indicated that the petition contained only unexhausted claims, the Court, on January 23, 2013, issued 

an Order to Show Cause why the petition should not be dismissed as entirely unexhausted. (Doc. 3). 

That Order to Show Cause gave Petitioner thirty days within which to file a response. Petitioner has 

never filed a response to the Order to Show Cause.

However, on February 22, 2013, Petitioner filed a motion to amend the petition, indicating that 

he wished to amend the original petition to include newly exhausted claims. (Doc. 6). Petitioner did 

STANLEY CLARKE,

 Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, MADERA

COUNTY PROBTION DEPARTMENT,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:13-cv-00049-JLT

ORDER REQUIRING PETITIONER TO FILE 

RESPONSE

THIRTY DAY DEADLINE

Case 1:13-cv-00049-LJO-JLT Document 18 Filed 08/08/13 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 identify those claims he had exhausted, nor did he indicate whether those claims were the same 

claims as those contained in the original petition or instead were new claims never before presented to 

this Court. Also on February 22, 2013, Petitioner filed a motion to stay proceedings pending 

exhaustion of certain claims which, again, were never identified. (Doc. 7). Once again, Petitioner 

failed to explain whether the stay was simply until he finished exhausting the claims already raised in 

the original petition, or whether he was now seeking to exhaust additional new claim. On March 21, 

2013, Petitioner filed a second motion to amend the petition, which again did not identify the claims 

Petitioner was seeking to exhaust. The motion appears to be entirely duplicative of the motion to 

amend filed on February 22, 2013. 

On March 1, 2013, Petitioner filed a motion to disqualify United States District Judge assigned 

to this case, Hon. Lawrence O’Neill. (Doc. 8). The Court issued an order denying the motion to 

disqualify on March 6, 2013. (Doc. 10). On March 21, 2013, before the Court could rule on 

Petitioner’s pending motions to amend and motion to stay, Petitioner filed an unauthorized 

interlocutory appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on March 21, 2013. 

(Doc. 13). At that point, this Court was divested of jurisdiction to proceed on the petition. On June 

20, 2013, the Ninth Circuit dismissed the appeal as an improper interlocutory appeal and mandate 

issued on July 16, 2013, thus returning jurisdiction to this Court. (Docs. 16 & 17).

The Court must now address the pending motions to amend and motion to stay and determine 

how to proceed from this juncture. However, after reviewing the pending motions, the Court is, once 

again, unsure of what Petitioner is requesting in those motions and whether those motions are still 

relevant. Accordingly, the Court will require Petitioner to file a response in which SHALL address the 

pending motions and how he wishes to proceed. 

DISCUSSION

After considering the pending motions, it appears that, depending on whether the “newly” 

exhausted claims are indeed “new” claims that never before have been presented to this Court or are,

in fact, the same claims raised in the original petition, Petitioner would have three options.

First, if the newly exhausted claims are the same claims raised in the original petition, and if

Case 1:13-cv-00049-LJO-JLT Document 18 Filed 08/08/13 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

there are no new claims that have been exhausted, Petitioner need do nothing but indicate that fact to 

the Court. If the unexhausted claims in the original petition are now exhausted, and Petitioner does 

not seek to add additional claims to the original petition, the Court can now simply order an Answer 

from Respondent and proceed with the original petition without further ado. Under this option, the 

motions to amend would be superfluous since there would be no “new” claims to add to the original 

petition. The mere fact that the original unexhausted claims are now exhausted does not require the 

filing of an amended petition nor does it require a stay of proceedings.

Second, if Petitioner has exhausted the claims in the original petition but also exhausted 

additional claims he wishes to add to the original petition, he may do so simply by filing a first 

amended petition without leave of Court. Under federal law, a petitioner may amend a petition for 

writ of habeas corpus once “as a matter of course,” and without leave of Court, before a response has 

been filed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), as applied to habeas corpus actions pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 2242 and Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Calderon v. United States 

District Court (Thomas), 144 F.3d 618, 620 (9th Cir. 1998); Bonn v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 815, 845 (9th 

Cir. 1995). Since no response has yet been ordered from Respondent, Petitioner need not seek leave 

of Court to file an amended petition, if indeed there are “new” claims he has exhausted and wishes to 

add to the claims in the original petition.

Third, if Petitioner is seeking to exhaust either new or original claims and the exhaustion 

process is still ongoing, i.e., has not yet been completed in the California Supreme Court, he should 

advise the Court of the details of his exhaustion efforts, including the specific claims he is seeking to 

exhaust, the state courts in which he has filed habeas petitions on those claims, the dates on which 

those petitions were filed, and any final orders from state courts either granting or denying those 

petitions. Under United States Supreme Court case law, the Court can only grant a stay of 

proceedings after an assessment of whether the specific claims for which exhaustion is sought are 

“potentially meritorious.” Rhines v. Weber, 125 S.Ct. 1528, 1535 (2005). Making such a 

determination obviously requires that the Court understand the specific claims that Petitioner is 

seeking to exhaust. 

Case 1:13-cv-00049-LJO-JLT Document 18 Filed 08/08/13 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

From the foregoing, Petitioner is ordered to file a response within thirty days indicating which 

of the three options listed above he feels is appropriate to his situation. Petitioner may include in his 

response any additional explanatory information that would help the Court to better understand what 

claims have been exhausted, what claims, if any, remain to be exhausted, and what claims Petitioner 

wishes to proceed on in his petition.

ORDER

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that Petitioner file a response complying with this 

Order within thirty days of the date of service of this Order. 

Petitioner is forewarned that his failure to comply with this Order may result in an Order of 

Dismissal or a Recommendation that the petition be dismissed pursuant to Local Rule 110.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 8, 2013 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00049-LJO-JLT Document 18 Filed 08/08/13 Page 4 of 4