Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_00-cv-01123/USCOURTS-caed-2_00-cv-01123-0/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 1

 Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986).

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN PERRIDON,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-00-1123 LKK JFM P

vs.

ERNIE ROE, Warden, et al., ORDER AND

Respondents. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding through counsel with an application for a

writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On June 2, 2005 this matter came on for

hearing before the undersigned on petitioner’s motions for leave to file an amended petition and

to stay this action pending exhaustion of state remedies, and on respondents’ motion for

summary judgment. Marylou Hillberg, Esq., appeared as counsel for petitioner. John Bachman,

Deputy Attorney General, appeared as counsel for respondents.

I. Petitioner’s Motion to Amend

Petitioner seeks leave to amend his petition to delete a Fourth Amendment claim

and a claim of prosecutorial misconduct and to add a Batson claim1 and a claim of ineffective

assistance of appellate counsel for failing to raise the Batson claim on direct appeal. 

Case 2:00-cv-01123-LKK -JFM Document 30 Filed 06/03/05 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

2

 Although Felix is presently before the United States Supreme Court pursuant to a grant

of certiorari review, the panel opinion has not been stayed and is still the law of this circuit. See

Yong v. I.N.S., 208 F.3d 1116, 1119 n.2 (9th Cir. 2000). 

2

Respondents oppose the addition of new claims, contending that petitioner unduly delayed 

raising the claims and that it is likely the California Supreme Court will reject the claims as

untimely. Respondents also contend that the new claims are barred by the statute of limitations.

Petitioner’s motion to amend is governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 15. See, e.g., In re

Morris, 363 F.3d 89, 893 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing Calderon v. United States Dist. Court (Taylor),

134 F.3d 981, 986 n.6 (9th Cir. 1998) and 28 U.S.C. § 2242). 

Under Rule 15(a), leave to amend “shall be freely given when

justice so requires.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a). We have held that leave

to amend, although within the discretion of the trial court, “should

be guided by the underlying purpose of Rule 15(a) . . . which was

to facilitate decisions on the merits, rather than on technicalities or

pleadings.” James v. Pliler, 269 F.3d 1124, 1126 (9th Cir.2001). A

district court may, however, take into consideration such factors as

“bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing party, futility of

the amendment, and whether the party has previously amended his

pleadings.” Bonin v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 815, 845 (9th Cir.1995).

In re Morris, at 894. Moreover, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c), new claims “relate back” to the

filing of the original petition if the new claims arise “from the same conduct, transaction or

occurrence set forth in the original pleading.” Felix v. Mayle, 379 F.3d 612, 615 (9th Cir. 2004),

cert. granted, Mayle v. Felix, 125 S.Ct. 824 (2005). For purposes of this habeas corpus action,

the relevant “conduct, transaction or occurrence” is petitioner’s state trial and conviction. Felix,

379 F.3d at 618.

There is no evidence of bad faith, nor do respondents contend that they would be

prejudiced by amendment, and petitioner has not previously amended his petition. Respondents

contend that petitioner has unduly delayed in bringing the claims and, therefore, that amendment

would be futile. However, under Felix, the proposed claims relate back to the filing of the

original petition and are therefore timely for purposes of the federal statute of limitations.2

Case 2:00-cv-01123-LKK -JFM Document 30 Filed 06/03/05 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

3

Respondents’ remaining argument in opposition to amendment is grounded chiefly in

anticipation of a procedural default defense that may be raised if the California Supreme Court

rejects the claims on untimeliness grounds. (See Opposition to Motion to Amend Petition, filed

May 18, 2005, at 2.) Anticipation of that potential defense is not, at this stage, sufficient to

justify denial of leave to amend. 

For the foregoing reasons, petitioner’s motion to amend will be granted. 

II. Petitioner’s Motion to Stay

Petitioner also seeks a stay of this action pending exhaustion of state remedies as

to his Batson claim and his claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. Respondents

oppose the motion, contending that petitioner has failed to show “good cause” for his failure to

exhaust the claims in state court before raising them in this action, and that the claims are

“plainly meritless.” (Respondents’ Opposition, at 3-4.) 

In Rhines v. Weber, U.S. , 125 S.Ct. 1528 (2005), the United States Supreme

Court held that a district court has authority to stay a mixed petition pending exhaustion of

unexhausted claims in “limited circumstances,” i.e., “when the district court determines there

was good cause for the petitioner's failure to exhaust his claims first in state court.” Id. at 1535. 

The Court also held that it would be an abuse of discretion to stay federal habeas corpus

proceedings pending exhaustion of a “plainly meritless” claim. Id. 

Here, the question of “good cause” for the failure to first exhaust the new claims

in state court is intertwined with petitioner’s claim that his appellate counsel was ineffective in

failing to raise the Batson claim on direct appeal. Considerations of comity dictate that the state

courts be first given an opportunity to consider that claim before this court addresses its merits. 

See Rhines, at 1532-33 (citing Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (1982)). Moreover, the record 

presently before this court does not support a finding that petitioner’s Batson claim is “plainly

meritless.” 

/////

Case 2:00-cv-01123-LKK -JFM Document 30 Filed 06/03/05 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

4

For the foregoing reasons, petitioner’s motion to stay should be granted and

petitioner should be directed to file a motion to lift the stay not later than thirty days after

resolution of his unexhausted claims by the California Supreme Court. See Rhines, at 1535. 

III. Respondents’ Motion for Summary Judgment

Respondents seek summary judgment on the claims in the original petition. In

view of the order and findings and recommendations made herein, respondents’ motion should

be denied without prejudice.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s May 9, 2005 motion to amend/correct his petition for writ of

habeas corpus is granted;

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to file the amended petition lodged with

petitioner’s motion to amend; and 

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Petitioner’s May 9, 2005 motion to stay be granted;

2. This action be stayed pending exhaustion of state remedies as to petitioner’s

Batson claim and petitioner’s claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel;

3. Petitioner be directed to file a motion to lift the stay within thirty days from the

date of any order by the California Supreme Court resolving the claims referred to in paragraph 2

of this recommendation;

4. Respondents’ May 18, 2005 motion for summary judgment be denied without

prejudice; and

5. The Clerk of the Court be directed to administratively close this case. 

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

Case 2:00-cv-01123-LKK -JFM Document 30 Filed 06/03/05 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

5

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: June 3, 2005. 

12

perr1123.mta

Case 2:00-cv-01123-LKK -JFM Document 30 Filed 06/03/05 Page 5 of 5