Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00200/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00200-4/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LAURENCIO MARTINEZ QUINTERO,

Petitioner,

v.

TAMMY FOSS,

Respondent.

No. 2:20-cv-00200-TLN-CKD P

ORDER

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this habeas corpus 

proceeding filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On March 22, 2021, the district court judge

adopted the Findings and Recommendations issued on December 29, 2020, and dismissed 

petitioner’s second amended habeas corpus application as a mixed petition.1

 ECF No. 32. The 

case was remanded for further proceedings. ECF No. 32. Petitioner is directed to file a third 

amended petition containing only exhausted claims within 60 days from the date of this order. 

Petitioner may file a motion to stay these proceedings pursuant to Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063 

(9th Cir. 2003), if he is exhausting his state court remedies with respect to his ineffective 

assistance of counsel claims.2

1 Petitioner’s claims for relief based on the ineffective assistance of counsel raised as claims 7-13 

in the second amended petition were summarily dismissed without prejudice. 

2

 See King v. Ryan, 564 F.3d 1133, 1140-41 (9th Cir. 2009) (emphasizing that a “petitioner 

Case 2:20-cv-00200-TLN-CKD Document 33 Filed 06/29/21 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

27

28

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner file a third amended habeas 

corpus petition within 60 days from the date of this order.

Dated: June 28, 2021

12/quin0200.reset.docx

seeking to use the Kelly procedure will be able to amend his unexhausted claims back into his 

federal petition once he has exhausted them only if those claims are determined to be timely. 

And demonstrating timeliness will often be problematic under the now-applicable legal 

principles.”) (emphasis added); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1) (stating that a one year period of 

limitation shall apply to all federal habeas petitions challenging a state court judgment). 

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:20-cv-00200-TLN-CKD Document 33 Filed 06/29/21 Page 2 of 2