Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01003/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01003-1/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES CONRIQUEZ, JR., )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

DERRAL G. ADAMS, Warden, ) 

 )

Respondent. )

)

)

)

 )

1:09-cv—01003-SKO-HC

ORDER NOTING THAT THE FIRST

AMENDED PETITION (DOC. 18) WAS

TIMELY FILED

ORDER REQUIRING PETITIONER TO

SUBMIT WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS A

SIGNED DECLARATION CONCERNING THE

FIRST AMENDED PETITION

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S

MOTION FOR STAY AND ABEYANCE

(DOC. 19)

ORDER DIRECTING PETITIONER TO

FILE STATUS REPORTS EVERY THIRTY

(30) DAYS

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a

petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), the parties have consented to

the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge to conduct

all further proceedings in the case, including the entry of final

judgment, by manifesting their consent in writings signed by the

parties or their representatives and filed by Petitioner on

1

Case 1:09-cv-01003-SKO Document 21 Filed 07/12/10 Page 1 of 7
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

August 24, 2009, and on behalf of Respondent on August 18, 2009. 

Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s motion for a stay of the

proceedings in order to permit him to exhaust unexhausted claims

in the courts of the state of California, filed on April 19,

2010. Respondent filed a response on May 11, 2010. No reply has

been filed. 

I. Background

The original petition, which challenges a conviction

suffered in the Superior Court of the County of Kern, State of

California, was filed in the Central District of California on

May 19, 2009, and was transferred to this Court on June 9, 2009.

Petitioner filed a motion to stay the proceedings in July

2009, and Respondent opposed the motion. On March 5, 2010, the

Court denied Petitioner’s motion for a stay because with respect

to two (2) out of the five (5) claims or grounds set forth in the

petition, Petitioner admitted that he had not exhausted state

court remedies. (Order 2, doc. 16.) Three (3) claims had been

exhausted: 1) trial counsel was ineffective in failing to object

timely or move to exclude Petitioner’s out-of-court statement in

violation of Petitioner’s Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights

to remain silent; 2) the prosecutor’s misstating the reasonable

doubt standard and vouching for the sole prosecution witness

violated Petitioner’s right to due process of law and constituted

a denial of the right to the effective assistance of counsel; and

3) cumulative prejudice violated Petitioner’s right to due

process of law. (Id. 1.) 

The Court expressly concluded that because Petitioner had

not demonstrated good cause why he had not exhausted claims four

2

Case 1:09-cv-01003-SKO Document 21 Filed 07/12/10 Page 2 of 7
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

(4) and five (5) (improper use of a prison prior and ineffective

assistance of appellate counsel), it would not grant a

discretionary stay of all claims that may be ordered upon a

showing of good cause for having failed to exhaust state court

remedies pursuant to Rhines v. Webber, 544 U.S. 269, 277 (2005). 

However, the Court found it appropriate for Petitioner to proceed

pursuant to the “Kelly” procedure outlined in Kelly v. Small, 315

F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2003), pursuant to which 1) the petitioner

amends his mixed petition to delete any unexhausted claims; 2)

the Court stays and holds in abeyance the amended, fully

exhausted petition and allows the petitioner an opportunity to

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

petitioner later amends the petition and re-attaches the newly

exhausted claims to the original petition. See, King v. Ryan,

564 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, the Court granted

Petitioner leave to amend his petition for writ of habeas corpus

and to file a motion to stay the amended petition within twenty

(20) days. (Doc. 16, 3.)

II. Timeliness of the Amended Petition

Petitioner filed the first amended petition for writ of

habeas corpus, along with his request for a stay, on April 19,

2010. As Respondent acknowledges (Resp. 1-2) and review of the

first amended petition (FAP) shows, Petitioner raised only the

three (3) exhausted claims in the petition. However, Respondent

notes that the FAP was filed on April 19, about twenty (20) days

after the running of the thirty-day period set by the Court for

filing the amended pleading and requesting a stay. (Id. 2.) 

Respondent does not assert that the FAP was untimely.

3

Case 1:09-cv-01003-SKO Document 21 Filed 07/12/10 Page 3 of 7
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

As Respondent states, the proof of service filed by

Petitioner reflects that Petitioner deposited the FAP in the mail

on March 24, 2010. (Doc. 18 at 34.) The Court understands

Petitioner’s declaration concerning deposit with the mails to

reflect the date upon which Petitioner deposited the petition

with the prison authorities. The Court generally affords a

habeas petitioner application of the mailbox rule as to all his

habeas filings in state court and in this federal court. Houston

v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 275-76 (1988) (pro se prisoner filing is

dated from the date prisoner delivers it to prison authorities);

Stillman v. Lamarque, 319 F.3d 1199, 1201 (9th Cir. 2003)

(mailbox rule applies to pro se prisoner who delivers habeas

petition to prison officials for the Court within limitations

period). Affording Petitioner the benefit of the mailbox rule,

the Court concludes that the FAP, which was due to be filed on

March 29, 2010, was timely filed when delivered to authorities on

March 24, 2010.

III. Order to Petitioner to Submit a Signed Declaration 

 under Penalty of Perjury 

A review of the FAP shows that Petitioner did not sign the

first amended petition.

Local Rule 131 requires a document submitted to the Court

for filing to include an original signature. In addition, Rule 2

of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases (Habeas Rules) requires

a petition for writ of habeas corpus to “be signed under penalty

of perjury by the petitioner.” 

In light of the difficulty in having Petitioner submit a new

habeas corpus petition, Petitioner is ORDERED to submit a

4

Case 1:09-cv-01003-SKO Document 21 Filed 07/12/10 Page 4 of 7
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

document stating that he submitted the first amended petition to

the Court and to sign it under penalty of perjury. The document

should contain an original signature. Petitioner is GRANTED

thirty (30) from the date of service of this order to comply with

the Court’s directive. 

Petitioner is forewarned that failure to comply with a Court

order will result in dismissal of the petition pursuant to Local

Rule 110.

IV. Petitioner’s Motion for Stay

The Court notes that Respondent has responded to

Petitioner’s motion for stay filed on April 19, 2010. Respondent

notes that the Kelly procedure often involves greater difficulty

and risk in ultimately demonstrating the timeliness of laterincluded, unexhausted claims because the pendency of a federal

habeas petition does not toll the running of the statute of

limitations. However, Respondent does not oppose the requested

stay.

A district court has discretion to stay a petition which it

may validly consider on the merits. Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S.

269, 276 (2005); King v. Ryan, 564 F.3d 1133, 1138-39 (9th Cir.

2009). A petition may be stayed either under Rhines, or under

Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063 (9 Cir. 2003). King v. Ryan, 564 th

F.3d 1133, 1138-41 (9th Cir. 2009) Under Rhines, the Court has

discretion to stay proceedings; however, this discretion is

circumscribed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty

Act of 1996 (AEDPA). Rhines, 544 U.S. at 276-77. In light of

AEDPA’s objectives, “stay and abeyance [is] available only in

limited circumstances” and “is only appropriate when the district

5

Case 1:09-cv-01003-SKO Document 21 Filed 07/12/10 Page 5 of 7
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

court determines there was good cause for the petitioner’s

failure to exhaust his claims first in state court.” Id. at 277-

78. 

In this case, Petitioner has failed to demonstrate good

cause for his failure to exhaust his claims first in state court

prior to raising them here. 

A petition may also be stayed pursuant to the procedure set

forth by the Ninth Circuit in Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063 (9th

Cir. 2003). Under this three-step procedure: 1) the petitioner

files an amended petition deleting the unexhausted claims; 2) the

district court stays and holds in abeyance the fully exhausted

petition; and 3) the petitioner later amends the petition to

include the newly exhausted claims. See, King v. Ryan, 564 F.3d

1133, 1135 (9 Cir. 2009). However, the amendment is only th

allowed if the additional claims are timely. Id. at 1140-41. 

In this case, Petitioner meets the qualifications for a

Kelly stay. The FAP presents three (3) claims which he states

have been presented to the California Supreme Court and are

therefore exhausted. Because the instant petition is already

exhausted, the first step is complete. 

Therefore, the Court will stay the proceedings according to

the second step of the Kelly procedure. Petitioner will be

instructed to file status reports of his progress through the

state courts. Once the California Supreme Court renders its

opinion, provided the opinion is a denial of relief, Petitioner

must file an amended petition including all of his exhausted

claims. He is forewarned that claims may be precluded as

untimely if they do not comport with the statute of limitations

6

Case 1:09-cv-01003-SKO Document 21 Filed 07/12/10 Page 6 of 7
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

set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).

V. Disposition

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

1) Petitioner is DIRECTED to submit to the Court no later

than thirty (30) days after the date of service of this order a

document that contains an original signature that is dated, and

that is signed under penalty of perjury under the laws of the

United States of America, stating that Petitioner submitted the

first amended petition and that the allegations of fact set forth

in the first amended petition are true and correct; 

2) Petitioner’s motion for stay of the proceedings is

GRANTED pursuant to Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063 (9 Cir. th

2003); 

3) The proceedings are STAYED pending exhaustion of state

remedies; 

4) Petitioner is DIRECTED to file a status report of his

progress in the state courts within thirty (30) days, and then

every thirty (30) days thereafter until exhaustion is complete;

and

5) Within thirty (30) days after the final order of the

California Supreme Court, Petitioner MUST FILE an amended

petition in this Court including all exhausted claims.

Petitioner is forewarned that failure to comply with this

Order will result in the Court’s vacating the stay.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 12, 2010 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

ie14hj UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7

Case 1:09-cv-01003-SKO Document 21 Filed 07/12/10 Page 7 of 7