Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-05783/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-05783-1/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 California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RONALD DEMETRIUS THOMAS,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM MUNIZ,

Respondent.

Case No.15-cv-05783-JD 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

DISMISS IN PART

Re: Dkt. No. 10

Ronald Thomas, a pro se state prisoner, has brought a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 

2254. The Court ordered respondent to file an answer on the following claims that counsel was 

ineffective: (1) counsel failed to present evidence that Thomas was elsewhere at the time of the 

murder as promised in his opening statement; (2) counsel opened the door to damaging evidence 

by placing Thomas’ character at issue; (3) counsel failed to object to highly prejudicial evidence; 

(4) counsel failed to challenge inadmissible cell tower evidence; (5) counsel failed to object to 

erroneous instructions; and (6) counsel lied to Thomas about his extensive record of misconduct 

and discipline in earlier cases. Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that 

claims three, four, five and six are unexhausted. Respondent concedes that claims one and two are 

exhausted. 

EXHAUSTION

An application for a federal writ of habeas corpus filed by a prisoner who is in state 

custody pursuant to a judgment of a state court may not be granted unless the prisoner has first 

exhausted state judicial remedies, either by way of a direct appeal or in collateral proceedings, by 

presenting the highest state court available with a fair opportunity to rule on the merits of each and 

every issue he or she seeks to raise in federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b),(c); Granberry v. 

Case 3:15-cv-05783-JD Document 12 Filed 11/16/16 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 California

Greer, 481 U.S. 129, 133-34 (1987). Petitioner has the burden of pleading exhaustion in his or her 

habeas petition. See Cartwright v. Cupp, 650 F.2d 1103, 1104 (9th Cir. 1981).

A petitioner fully and fairly presents a claim to the state courts, “if he presents the claim 

(1) to the correct forum; (2) through the proper vehicle; and (3) by providing the factual and legal 

basis for the claim. Full and fair presentation additionally requires a petitioner to present the 

substance of his claim to the state courts, including a reference to a federal constitutional 

guarantee and a statement of facts that entitle the petitioner to relief.” Scott v. Schriro, 567 F.3d 

573, 582 (9th Cir. 2009) (citations omitted).

Thomas has filed a response and concedes that claims three, four, five and six were not 

exhausted. He seeks to strike those claims and proceed on claims one and two. Thomas’ request 

will be granted; however, the Court also informs him that he may choose to proceed by filing a 

motion to stay pending the exhaustion of the unexhausted claims in state court. 1

In Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005) the United States Supreme Court found that a 

stay and abeyance of a mixed federal 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, he shall file a motion addressing the Rhines factors. 

In the alternative, petitioner may file a motion for a stay pursuant to the three-step procedure 

outlined in Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2003)2and 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 

 

1

Petitioner is cautioned that the habeas corpus statute imposes a one-year statute of limitations for 

filing non capital habeas corpus petitions in federal court. In most cases, the one-year period will 

start to run on the date on which the state court judgment became final by the conclusion of direct 

review or the expiration of time for seeking direct review, although the statute of limitations is 

tolled while a properly filed application for state post-conviction or other collateral review is 

pending. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).

2

Pursuant to the Kelly procedure, (1) a petitioner amends his petition to delete any unexhausted 

claims; (2) the court stays and holds in abeyance the amended, fully exhausted petition, allowing 

the petitioner the opportunity to proceed to state court to exhaust the deleted claims; and (3) the 

petitioner later amends his petition and re-attaches the newly exhausted claims to the original 

petition.” King v. Ryan, 564 F.3d at 1134 (citing Kelly, 315 F.3d at 1070-71).

Case 3:15-cv-05783-JD Document 12 Filed 11/16/16 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 California

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.

CONCLUSION

1. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (Docket No. 10) is GRANTED IN PART in that the 

unexhausted claims are dismissed.

2. If petitioner wishes to stay the petition while he exhausts the unexhausted claims he 

must file a motion for a stay by December 20, 2016. If petitioner only wishes to proceed with the 

two exhausted claims, claims one and two, he does not need to do anything. 

3. If petitioner files a motion to stay, respondent need not do anything until instructed by 

the Court.

4. If petitioner elects to proceed with the exhausted claims, respondent shall file with the 

Court and serve on petitioner, within ninety (90) days of December 20, 2016, an answer 

conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, showing cause 

why a writ of habeas corpus should not be granted. Respondent shall file with the answer and 

serve on petitioner a copy of all portions of the state trial record that have been transcribed 

previously and that are relevant to a determination of the issues presented by the petition. 

If petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he shall do so by filing a traverse with the 

Court and serving it on respondent within twenty-eight (28) days of his receipt of the answer.

5. 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 must keep 

the Court informed of any change of address and must comply with the Court's orders in a timely 

Case 3:15-cv-05783-JD Document 12 Filed 11/16/16 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 California

fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant 

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). See Martinez v. Johnson, 104 F.3d 769, 772 (5th Cir. 

1997) (Rule 41(b) applicable in habeas cases).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 16, 2016

JAMES DONATO

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-05783-JD Document 12 Filed 11/16/16 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 California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RONALD DEMETRIUS THOMAS,

Plaintiff,

v.

WILLIAM MUNIZ,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-05783-JD 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. 

District Court, Northern District of California.

That on November 16, 2016, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by 

placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by 

depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery 

receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Ronald Demetrius Thomas ID: AN0774

Salinas Valley State Prison-Facility C 71266

P.O. Box 1050

Soledad, CA 93960 

Dated: November 16, 2016

Susan Y. Soong

Clerk, United States District Court

By:________________________

LISA R. CLARK, Deputy Clerk to the 

Honorable JAMES DONATO

Case 3:15-cv-05783-JD Document 12 Filed 11/16/16 Page 5 of 5