Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00100/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00100-1/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)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN CHRISTIAN MARSTON,

Petitioner,

 v.

KATHLEEN PROSPER, et al.,

Respondents.

 /

No. C 07-00100 JSW

AMENDED ORDER (1)

GRANTING APPLICATION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

AND (2) DIRECTING

RESPONDENT TO FILE

RESPONSE TO APPLICATION

TO HOLD FEDERAL HABEAS

PETITION IN ABEYANCE

PENDING EXHAUSTION

Petitioner John Christian Marston has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Now before the Court is Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma

pauperis and request to hold the petition in abeyance pending exhaustion of potentially

dispositive claims in state court. The Court HEREBY ORDERS that the application to proceed

in forma pauperis is GRANTED. Petitioner shall serve by certified mail a copy of this order

and his petition and all attachments thereto upon Respondent. 

With respect to Petitioner’s request for a stay, the Court directs Respondents to file a

response to his requested stay.

Case 3:07-cv-00100-JSW Document 5 Filed 06/01/07 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

BACKGROUND

Marston plead guilty to two counts of illegal possession of a concealed firearm within a

vehicle (California Penal Code § 12025(a)), one count of illegal possession of ammunition by a

felon (California Penal Code § 12316(b)(1)), and one count of illegal possession of

methamphetamine while armed with a loaded firearm (California Health & Safety Code §

11370.1(a)). Marston also admitted that he suffered a prior serious or violent felony conviction 

as defined under California Penal Code §§ 667.5(c) and 1192.7(c). On December 18, 2003, the

trial court sentenced Marston. Marston contends that the court wrongfully imposed the

aggravated term of four years for illegal possession of methamphetamine while armed with a

loaded firearm based on fact that were not found true by a jury or admitted by him, which was

doubled to eight years pursuant to California’s second strike law.

The California First District Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment against Marston on

July 28, 2005. On October 12, 2005, the California Supreme Court denied review.

ANALYSIS

Prisoners in state custody who wish to challenge collaterally in federal habeas

proceedings either the fact or length of their confinement are required first to exhaust state

judicial remedies, either on direct appeal or through collateral proceedings, by presenting the

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

they seek to raise in federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), (c); Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 515-

16 (1982). Requiring exhaustion of claims provides state courts with “the first opportunity to

correct federal constitutional errors and minimizes federal interference and disruption of state

judicial proceedings.” Rose, 455 U.S. at 514. If the petition combines exhausted and

unexhausted claims, the district court must dismiss the entire habeas petition without reaching

the merits of any of its claims. Guizar v. Estelle, 843 F.2d 371, 372 (9th Cir. 1988).

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”) imposes a one-year

statute of limitations to file a petition for a federal writ of habeas corpus concerning a state

court judgment. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). However, exhaustion of all state remedies is a

prerequisite to the petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1); Rose, 455 U.S. at 510. The interplay of

Case 3:07-cv-00100-JSW Document 5 Filed 06/01/07 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

3

these two requirements created a problem for petitioners filing mixed petitions because the

statute of limitations often precluded petitioners from obtaining federal review of the

unexhausted claims. Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 275 (2005).

In Rhines, the Supreme Court resolved this problem by approving a procedure whereby

a district court, in its discretion, could “stay [a] petition and hold it in abeyance while [a]

petitioner returns to state court to exhaust his previously unexhausted claims.” Id. However,

because a stay and abeyance has the potential to frustrate AEDPA’s dual purposes of

encouraging finality of state court judgments and creating incentives for petitioners to seek

relief in state court first, the Supreme Court also stated that the “stay and abeyance should be

available only in limited circumstances.” Id. at 277-78.

Thus, under Rhines, the stay and abeyance of a mixed petition is only appropriate when

the district court determines: (1) “there was good cause for petitioner’s failure to exhaust his

claims in state court;” (2) the unexhausted claims are not “plainly meritless;” and (3)

“reasonable time limits are placed on a petitioner’s trip to state court and back.” Id.

After Petitioner filed his petition in this Court, the Supreme Court issued its order in

Cunningham v. California, 127 S.Ct. 856 (2007), which Petitioner argues further supports his

petition. He seeks leave to stay this petition while he addresses the application of Cunningham

in state court. However, it is not clear that Petitioner’s petition is timely. Petitioner alleges that

his direct appeal concluded on October 12, 2005 and he does not allege that he initiated any

habeas proceedings in state court. Therefore, according to the dates set forth in his petition, it

appears that Petitioner was required to file his habeas petition on or before October 12, 2006. 

He did not file this petition until January 8, 2007. If Petitioner’s habeas petition is untimely,

any claims in his petition would be “plainly meritless.” Rhines, 544 U.S. at 277-78.

Therefore, the Court directs Respondent to file a response to Petitioner’s request for a

stay. Respondent shall file its response within thirty days of it being served with the petition 

///

///

///

Case 3:07-cv-00100-JSW Document 5 Filed 06/01/07 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 this order. Petitioner may file his reply, if any, within fifteen days of receipt of

Respondent’s response. The Court will then address Petitioner’s request for a stay.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 1, 2007 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-00100-JSW Document 5 Filed 06/01/07 Page 4 of 4