Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-04778/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-04778-1/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 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

HUGUETTE NICOLE YOUNG,

Petitioner, 

v. 

CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO, 

Respondent. 

Case No. 14-cv-4778-TEH 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE 

TO AMEND 

Petitioner, Huguette Nicole Young, has filed a pro se 

Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, 

challenging a judgment of conviction from the San Francisco 

County Superior Court. Petitioner has paid the filing fee. 

I 

Petitioner was found guilty after a jury trial of two counts 

of depriving a lawful custodian of the right to child custody. 

Petitioner was sentenced to one year in county jail, three years 

of probation, and a three year stay away order from the children. 

The California Court of Appeal affirmed her conviction and 

modified the judgment. The California Supreme Court denied 

review. 

II 

This Court may entertain a petition for a writ of habeas 

corpus “in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment 

of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in 

Case 3:14-cv-04778-TEH Document 12 Filed 06/02/15 Page 1 of 5
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United 

States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). It shall “award the writ or issue 

an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ 

should not be granted, unless it appears from the application 

that the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto.” 

Id. § 2243. 

Petitioner asserts the following claims: (1) penal law 

section 287.5 is overly broad and violates due process; (2) the 

term ‘maliciously’ in § 287.5 is vague and violates due process; 

(3) the trial court erred in imposing the three year stay away 

order; (4) the state enforces unconstitutional family laws; (5) 

the prosecution argued evidence that was incorrect; (6) improper 

jury instructions; (7) she was arrested without a warrant; (8) 

there was misleading audio evidence introduced at trial; (9) the 

assignment of the trial judge was improper; (10) the jury was 

improperly selected; and (11) ineffective assistance of counsel. 

Petitioner indicates that she filed a direct appeal that was 

denied by the California Court of Appeal and the California 

Supreme Court later denied review. There is no indication that 

she filed any state habeas petitions. Petitioner has not 

included the briefs filed in state court but the Court has 

reviewed the denial by the California Court of Appeal. People v. 

Young, No. A132461, 2012 WL 222530 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 22, 2013). 

It appears that many of the claims in this federal petition have 

not been exhausted.1 

 

1 Liberally construed, it appears from the California Court of 

Appeal opinion that claims one, three, six, and eleven were 

raised on direct appeal.

Case 3:14-cv-04778-TEH Document 12 Filed 06/02/15 Page 2 of 5
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

Before she may challenge either the fact or length of her 

confinement in a habeas petition in this court, Petitioner must 

present to the California Supreme Court any claims she wishes to 

raise in this court. See Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 522 (1982) 

(holding every claim raised in federal habeas petition must be 

exhausted). The general rule is that a federal district court 

must dismiss a federal habeas petition containing any claim as to 

which state remedies have not been exhausted. Id. When faced 

with a post-AEDPA mixed petition, the district court must sua 

sponte inform the habeas petitioner of the mixed petition 

deficiency and provide her an opportunity to amend the mixed 

petition by striking unexhausted claims as an alternative to 

suffering dismissal before the court may dismiss the petition. 

Jefferson v. Budge, 419 F.3d 1013, 1016 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing 

Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 277 (2005)) (court's erroneous 

dismissal of mixed petition entitled petitioner to equitable 

tolling of one-year AEDPA statute of limitations from the date 

the first habeas petition was dismissed until the date the second 

habeas petition was filed). 

Because this appears to be a mixed petition, Petitioner will 

be given the opportunity to proceed in one of three ways. 

Petitioner may file an amended petition that demonstrates all the 

claims have been properly exhausted. Petitioner may file an 

amended petition containing only the exhausted claims or she may 

file a motion to stay this action pending exhaustion of the 

unexhausted claims in state court. 

In Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005) the United States 

Supreme Court found that a stay and abeyance of a mixed federal 

Case 3:14-cv-04778-TEH Document 12 Filed 06/02/15 Page 3 of 5
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

petition should be available only in the limited circumstance 

that good cause is shown for a failure to have first exhausted 

the claims in state court, that the claim or claims at issue 

potentially have merit and that there has been no indication that 

petitioner has been intentionally dilatory in pursuing the 

litigation. Rhines, supra, at 277-78. 

If Petitioner wishes to stay this action, she shall file a 

motion addressing the Rhines factors. In the alternative, 

Petitioner may file a motion for a stay pursuant to the threestep procedure outlined in Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063 (9th 

Cir. 2003) and King v. Ryan, 564 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 2009). A 

Petitioner seeking to avail himself of the Kelly three-step 

procedure is not required to show good cause, as under Rhines, 

but rather must show that the amendment of any newly exhausted 

claims back into the petition satisfies both Mayle v. Felix, 545 

U.S. 644, 655 (2005), by sharing a “common core of operative 

facts” and Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167 (2001), by complying 

with the statute of limitations. King, 564 F.3d at 1141-43 

(finding district court’s dismissal of unexhausted claims was 

improper because petitioner was not required to show good cause 

to avail himself of the Kelly three-part procedure but affirming 

the dismissal as harmless because the unexhausted claims did not 

relate back to the claims in the original petition that were 

fully exhausted at the time of filing). However, no statute of 

limitations protection is imparted by such a stay, nor are 

exhausted claims adjudicated during the pendency of such a stay. 

Case 3:14-cv-04778-TEH Document 12 Filed 06/02/15 Page 4 of 5
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

III 

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown, 

1. The Petition is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND within 

twenty-eight days for Petitioner to either demonstrate to the 

Court that all claims are exhausted, dismiss the unexhausted 

claims, or file a motion stay following either the Rhines or 

Kelly procedures as described above. Failure to file a response 

within twenty-eight days of this order will result in the 

dismissal of this action without prejudice. 

2. Petitioner is reminded that all communications with the 

Court must be served on Respondent by mailing a true copy of the 

document to Respondent’s counsel. Petitioner also must keep the 

Court and all parties informed of any change of address by filing 

a separate document entitled “Notice of Change of Address.” 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 06/02/2015 

________________________ 

THELTON E. HENDERSON 

United States District Judge 

G:\PRO-SE\TEH\HC.14\ Young4778.dwlta.docx 

Case 3:14-cv-04778-TEH Document 12 Filed 06/02/15 Page 5 of 5