Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02850/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02850-4/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TERRANCE BOBBIT,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-06-2850 LKK DAD P

vs.

K.C. KRAMER, Warden, 

Respondent. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an amended petition for a

writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Before the court is petitioner’s motion to

hold proceedings in abeyance. In accordance with this court’s May 8, 2007 order, respondent has

filed a timely opposition. 

BACKGROUND

Petitioner challenges a judgment of conviction entered in the Sacramento County

Superior Court on February 5, 2005. Petitioner was charged in five counts of controlled

substance offenses with prior prison term enhancements pursuant to Penal Code § 667.5(b). It

was also alleged that petitioner had suffered three “strike priors.” Petitioner pled nolo contendere

to two of the substantive charges and admitted one “strike prior” conviction with the

understanding that the maximum sentence he could receive was 12 years and 8 months in state

Case 2:06-cv-02850-RHW -JPH Document 18 Filed 07/24/07 Page 1 of 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

 At the time petitioner filed his motion for stay and abeyance the Supreme Court had

1

granted certiorari in Cunningham, but had not yet decided the case. 

2

prison. At sentencing, the trial court imposed the upper term of 12 years and 8 months. The

California Court of Appeal affirmed petitioner’s conviction on April 7, 2006. The California

Supreme Court denied his petition for review on May 16, 2006. 

In his amended petition, petitioner alleges three grounds for relief: (1) petitioner

was illegally sentenced to an upper-term sentence in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to

jury trial and Fourteenth Amendment right to due process; (2) petitioner did not waive or forfeit

his right to a jury trial on the aggravating circumstances; and (3) any waiver or forfeiture of

petitioner’s right to a jury trial by counsel’s failure to demand a jury trial on aggravating

circumstances or failure to object to a judicial determination of aggravating facts is the result of

ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment. 

PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR STAY AND ABEYANCE

Petitioner requests that the court hold his petition for writ of habeas corpus in

abeyance to afford him an opportunity to exhaust additional claims for relief in state court. 

(Pet’r’s Mot. for Stay & Abey. at 1.) Petitioner also seeks to preserve his Blakely v. Washington,

542 U.S. 296 (2006) claim in light of the United States Supreme Court decision in Cunningham

v. California, ___ U.S. ___, 127 S. Ct. 856 (2007). 

1

Petitioner contends that his federal petition contains fully exhausted claims for

relief. However, petitioner has since filed a habeas petition in the California Supreme Court,

challenging his sentence, which he claims is a result of vindictive prosecution, and challenging

his plea bargain, which he claims is a result of ineffective assistance of trial counsel because his

counsel allegedly failed to advise him on a plea offer of six years. Petitioner, anticipating a delay

in fully exhausting these claims to the state’s highest court, filed his federal petition and

requested a stay. (Pet’r’s Mot. for Stay & Abey. at 3.) 

/////

Case 2:06-cv-02850-RHW -JPH Document 18 Filed 07/24/07 Page 2 of 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

3

RESPONDENT’S OPPOSITION

Respondent contends that petitioner has failed to demonstrate good cause for the

granting of a stay. Respondent notes that petitioner desires to stay this action to exhaust

additional claims related to his trial counsel and to preserve his Blakely claim. Respondent

argues that neither of these reasons is sufficient to justify a stay of these federal proceedings. 

(Resp’t’s Opp’n to Pet’r’s Mot. for Stay & Abey. at 1.) 

Respondent alleges that petitioner falls short of meeting his burden under Rhines

v. Weber. Petitioner has not demonstrated good cause and has not asserted any objective,

external factor that cannot fairly be attributed to him as to why these claims were not previously

raised. (Resp’t’s Opp’n to Pet’r’s Mot. for Stay & Abey. at 4.) Petitioner has not alleged that he

was ignorant of the claims, the substance of which were plainly known to him at trial. 

Respondent points to the California Superior Court decision, denying petitioner’s habeas

petition. That court relied on the trial transcripts demonstrating that petitioner was provided the

opportunity to accept a six-year plea offer in open court but declined to do so. Respondent

contends that petitioner was present and was an active participant during the trial proceedings

and was well-aware of the claims he is now pursuing in state court. (Resp’t’s Opp’n to Pet’r’s

Mot. for Stay & Abey. at 5.) 

Respondent argues that, even if petitioner has shown good cause, his unexhausted

claims are meritless. Respondent reiterates that petitioner knew at trial that the prosecution’s

plea offer had increased from six years to twelve years and eight months. Under state law,

preserving a claim of vindictive prosecution requires that it be raised in a pretrial motion to

dismiss. Absent this step, the issue is waived on appeal. (Resp’t’s Opp’n to Pet’r’s Mot. for Stay

& Abey. at 5.) Respondent contends that petitioner has not met his burden of showing good

cause, and even if he has, the state record demonstrates that the issues he intends to raise are

meritless. Accordingly, respondent concludes that petitioner’s motion should be denied. 

(Resp’t’s Opp’n to Pet’r’s Mot. for Stay & Abey. at 5.)

Case 2:06-cv-02850-RHW -JPH Document 18 Filed 07/24/07 Page 3 of 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

4

ANALYSIS 

The United States Supreme Court has affirmed the district court’s discretion to

stay a federal habeas proceeding to allow a petitioner to present unexhausted claims to the state

court where there is good cause for the petitioner’s failure to exhaust all claims in state court

before filing a federal habeas petition. See Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 277 (2005); see also

Anthony v. Cambra, 236 F.3d 568, 575 (9th Cir. 2000) (authorizing district courts to stay fully

exhausted federal petitions pending exhaustion of other claims); Calderon v. United States Dist.

Court (Taylor), 134 F.3d 981, 987-88 (9th Cir. 1998). The Court cautioned, however, that “stay

and abeyance should be available only in limited circumstances,” and “district courts should

place reasonable time limits on a petitioner’s trip to state court and back.” Id. at 277-78. The

Court noted that district courts should not grant a stay if the petitioner has engaged in abusive

litigation tactics or intentional delay or if the unexhausted claims are plainly meritless. Id. at

278.

Petitioner cannot present any new claims to this court until those claims have been

fairly presented to the California Supreme Court. It does not appear that the pro se petitioner

seeks to stay these proceedings for an improper purpose. Nor does it appear that petitioner has

engaged in abusive litigation tactics or intentional delay. On direct appeal, the California

Supreme Court did not deny petitioner’s petition for review until May 16, 2006. Petitioner

proceeded by promptly filing his initial petition before this court on December 18, 2006 and

filing a state petition, containing his unexhausted claims, with the California Supreme Court on

February 26, 2007. Moreover, if petitioner obtains relief in state court, his federal petition may

be rendered moot, thereby serving the interests of judicial economy as well as the interests of

justice. Finally, although respondent may ultimately prove to be correct regarding the merits of

the claims which petitioner is now exhausting, the undersigned at this time does not find them to

be plainly meritless. The undersigned will therefore recommend that this action be stayed while

petitioner exhausts his unexhausted claims.

Case 2:06-cv-02850-RHW -JPH Document 18 Filed 07/24/07 Page 4 of 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

5

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Petitioner’s December 18, 2006 motion to hold proceedings in abeyance be

granted;

2. In the event that all of petitioner’s unexhausted claims that he wishes to present

to this court were not included in his state habeas petition filed on February 26, 2007 with the

California Supreme Court, petitioner be ordered to present all unexhausted claims to the

California Supreme Court in a further state habeas corpus petition to be filed within thirty days

from the date of this order,

3. This action be stayed and the Clerk of the Court be directed to administratively

close the case;

4. Petitioner be ordered to file and serve a status report in this case on the first

court day of each month; and

5. Petitioner be ordered to file and serve a motion to lift the stay of this action,

along with a proposed second amended petition containing only exhausted claims, within thirty

days after petitioner is served with the California Supreme Court’s order disposing of the state

exhaustion petition.

DATED: July 23, 2007.

DAD:9

bobb2850.sty

Case 2:06-cv-02850-RHW -JPH Document 18 Filed 07/24/07 Page 5 of 5