Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00944/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00944-4/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 The original petition was filed pro se on May 13, 2005. 1

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEFFREY DEAN FORD,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-05-0944 LKK GGH P

vs.

TOM L. CAREY, Warden, 

Respondent. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding with appointed counsel, seeks a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner was sentenced, with prior convictions,

under the Three Strikes Law to a term of sixty years to life, on October 4, 2002, after a

Sacramento County Superior Court jury trial conviction for two counts of robbery in the second

degree (Cal. Penal Code § 211) with enhancements. First Amended Petition (FAP), p. 2. On

February 16, 2006, petitioner filed a first amended petition setting forth both exhausted and new,

unexhausted claims. On February 28, 2006, petitioner filed a motion for a stay pending 1

exhaustion of state court remedies as to the new claims. Respondent has filed no opposition to

the motion, and the time for doing so has expired.

Case 2:05-cv-00944-LKK -GGH Document 18 Filed 05/09/06 Page 1 of 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 Present counsel was substituted in by order filed on July 1, 2005. 2

2

Petitioner’s counsel contends that only after extensive review of transcripts and

trial counsel’s files and subsequent research were the new claims unearthed, and that petitioner

was not (and apparently could not) have been aware of the new claims when petitioner

exhausted, in timely and diligent fashion, the four claims set forth in the original petition. Stay

Request, pp. 3-5, Declaration of Marylou Hillberg. The new claims include: claim 2) prosecutor

failed to disclose material exculpatory evidence related to criminal cases and probationary status

of key prosecution witness in violation of petitioner’s constitutional rights; claim 3) ineffective

assistance of counsel when defense counsel failed to investigate favors granted to Connie Groins

in exchange for her testimony; claim 4) key prosecution witnesses provided false, perjurious

testimony against petitioner; claim 5) conviction and sentence violates Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and

Fourteenth Amendments of the federal constitution as well as sections (enumerated in the claim)

of Article 1 of the state constitution, in deprivation of petitioner’s rights to due process and to

equal protection, his right to reasonably competent assistance of counsel and his right to be free

of cruel and unusual punishment because petitioner is actually innocent of the crimes for which

he was convicted and sentenced. FAP, pp. 5-15 ; Stay Request, p. 3.

Petitioner was directed, in the June 14, 2005 scheduling order appointing the

Federal Defender as his counsel, that good cause for failing to exhaust as to any claims must be 2

demonstrated, pursuant to Rhines v. Weber, [544 U.S. 269,] 125 S. Ct. 1528 (2005). See Order,

filed 6/14/05, p. 2.

 Because petitioner’s motion is unopposed, and hence good cause is inferred, the

court will recommend a stay. Petitioner should be directed to proceed to exhaust claims 2

through 5 within thirty days of the imposition of a stay in this matter, should that occur, and

should file a notice of completed exhaustion and a request to lift the stay within thirty days of a

decision by the state supreme court. 

Case 2:05-cv-00944-LKK -GGH Document 18 Filed 05/09/06 Page 2 of 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

3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Petitioner’s February 28, 2006 unopposed motion/request for a stay of the first

amended petition should be granted, pending exhaustion of state court remedies as to claims 2

through 5 of the first amended petition;

2. This matter be stayed and administratively closed pending such exhaustion;

and 

3. Within thirty days of the imposition of any stay, petitioner be directed to

proceed to exhaust the new claims in state court; and, thereafter, within thirty days of a decision

rendered by the state supreme court, to file a notice of completed exhaustion and a request to lift

the stay. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within ten days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are advised

that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District

Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: 5/9/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

____________________________________

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009

ford0944.fr

Case 2:05-cv-00944-LKK -GGH Document 18 Filed 05/09/06 Page 3 of 3