Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-05494/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-05494-2/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 

KENNETH DEAN DAWSON, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

THE PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA, 

Respondent. 

Case No. 19-cv-05494-PJH 

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION WITH 

LEAVE TO AMEND 

Petitioner, a California prisoner, proceeds pro se with a writ of habeas corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The amended petition/motion to stay was dismissed with 

leave to amend. Petitioner has filed a second amended petition. 

BACKGROUND 

Petitioner was sentenced to 20 years in prison after he pleaded no contest to three 

counts of second-degree robbery. People v. Dawson, No. H041904, 2016 WL 758786, at 

*1 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 26, 2016). The California Court of Appeal affirmed his conviction 

on February 26, 2016. Id. Petitioner did not seek review with the California Supreme 

Court. In 2019 petitioner filed habeas petitions with the Santa Clara County Superior 

Court, California Court of Appeal and California Supreme Court. Petition (Docket No. 10) 

at 3-4. The petitions were all denied in 2019. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW 

This court may entertain a petition for 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 violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254(a); Rose v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). Habeas corpus petitions must meet 

Case 4:19-cv-05494-PJH Document 30 Filed 05/12/20 Page 1 of 4
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

heightened pleading requirements. McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994). 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 must “specify all the grounds for relief available to 

the petitioner ... [and] state the facts supporting each ground.” Rule 2(c) of the Rules 

Governing § 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. § 2254. “‘[N]otice’ pleading is not sufficient, for the 

petition is expected to state facts that point to a ‘real possibility of constitutional error.’” 

Rule 4 Advisory Committee Notes (quoting Aubut v. Maine, 431 F.2d 688, 689 (1st Cir. 

1970)). 

LEGAL CLAIMS 

The previous petitions were dismissed with leave to amend for petitioner to 

address the timeliness of this petition and to set forth his claim or claims. In this second 

amended petition, petitioner presents many arguments regarding why he was unable to 

seek review in the California Supreme Court on direct review and why he is entitled to 

tolling. However, petitioner failed to set forth what claims were later exhausted in state 

court and what claims he wishes to proceed with in this court. The second amended 

petition is dismissed with leave to amend. If petitioner files a third amended complaint he 

must clearly and plainly set forth his claims. He must also show that these claims were 

presented to the California Supreme Court. This is the final amendment that will be 

permitted. 

Petitioner is also informed that if he seeks resentencing similar to his arguments in 

state court, he is not entitled to relief because the state courts have already denied his 

requests. To the extent petitioner claims that California law has been violated, any such 

claim is dismissed because federal habeas relief is not available for state law errors. A 

“federal court may issue a writ of habeas corpus to a state prisoner ‘only on the ground 

that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United 

States.’” Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 216, 219 (2011) (citations omitted). 

If petitioner seeks a stay, he must present arguments why he is entitled to a stay. 

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

Case 4:19-cv-05494-PJH Document 30 Filed 05/12/20 Page 2 of 4
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

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. 

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) and King v. Ryan, 564 

F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 2009).1 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. 

CONCLUSION 

1. The second amended petition is DISMISSED with leave to amend. A third 

amended petition must be filed no later than June 12, 2020, and carry the words 

AMENDED PETITION on the first page. Failure to amend within the designated time will 

result in the dismissal of the petition. 

2. Petitioner must keep the court informed of any change of address and must 

1 “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 reattaches 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 4:19-cv-05494-PJH Document 30 Filed 05/12/20 Page 3 of 4
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

comply with the court's orders in a timely 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: May 12, 2020 

 

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON 

United States District Judge 

/s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton 

Case 4:19-cv-05494-PJH Document 30 Filed 05/12/20 Page 4 of 4