Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-01266/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-01266-4/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WAYLAND DEE KIRKLAND, No. CIV S-02-1266-RRB-CMK-P

Petitioner, 

vs. ORDER AFTER REMAND

D.K. BUTLER, et al.,

Respondents.

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This case is now before this court on remand from

the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

This case was dismissed on September 26, 2005, for petitioner’s failure to exhaust

his state remedies. Petitioner’s amended habeas petition raised two claims: a due process

violation for the prosecutor’s refusal to disclose a video showing El Dorado County Jail Guards

beating petitioner on May 5, 2000 and ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to obtain the

this video. On January 5, 2006, this court ordered both parties to produce any video or portions

of videos from the El Dorado County Jail on May 5, 2000, which showed petitioner. These

videos were lodged by both parties on January 18, 2005. As a result, this court found these

videos constituted new evidence because the videos were thought not to exist when petitioner

filed his state habeas petitions. Therefore, this court dismissed petitioner’s federal habeas for

Case 2:02-cv-01266-JAM-CMK Document 115 Filed 01/28/08 Page 1 of 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

2

failure to exhaust his state remedies.

Petitioner appealed this decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. With a

citation to James v. Pliler, 269 F.3d 1124 (9th Cir. 2001), the Ninth Circuit vacated this court’s

judgment and remanded the case to this court with the direction that this court reinstate the

petitioner’s habeas corpus petition and stay the proceedings while petitioner returns to state court

to exhaust his claims.

In James v. Pliler, the Ninth Circuit held that “district courts must advise pro se

habeas petitioners of their right to strike unexhausted claims.” Id. at 1126 (citing Tillema v.

Long, 253 F.3d 494 (9th Cir. 2001)); but see Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225. The Ninth Circuit

directed this court to stay proceedings pending exhaustion of claims in state court. These

proceedings are, therefore, hereby stayed. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Pursuant to the Ninth Circuit’s judgment vacating and remanding, these

proceedings are stayed pending exhaustion in state court;

2. Petitioner shall file a motion to lift the stay within 30 days of the

conclusion of state court proceedings;

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to update the docket to reflect that the

Ninth Circuit vacated the September 26, 2005, judgment (Doc. 90); and

4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to update the docket to reflect that this

matter is reopened but is hereby stayed. 

DATED: January 24, 2008

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:02-cv-01266-JAM-CMK Document 115 Filed 01/28/08 Page 2 of 2