Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_11-cv-03062/USCOURTS-cand-5_11-cv-03062-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 535
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Death Penalty
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Ptn for Writ of H/C - Stay of Execution

---

Case No.: 11-cv-03062-EJD

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE MOTION TO FILE AMENDED PETITION AND 

FOR CONTINUED STAY

1

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 California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

ROBERT LEE SMITH,

Petitioner,

v.

RONALD DAVIS,

Respondent.

Case No. 11-cv-03062-EJD 

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE MOTION TO FILE 

AMENDED PETITION AND FOR 

CONTINUED STAY

Re: Dkt. Nos. 67, 69

Petitioner has filed a Motion To File Amended Petition And For Continued Stay. ECF 

Dkt. No. 67. Petitioner, who is currently exhausting claims in state court, requests this Court to 

temporarily lift the stay imposed on his federal petition, amend his federal petition to include 

additional “materials and facts discovered in the exhaustion process”, and re-impose a stay 

pending the conclusion of exhaustion proceedings. ECF Dkt. No. 71 at 2. Respondent opposes

petitioner’s request on the grounds that petitioner’s requested amendment is untimely. For the 

reasons discussed below, petitioner’s Motion is DENIED.

Background

In 1993, a jury convicted petitioner of the first degree murders of Michelle Dorsey and 

James Martin, among other offenses, and found true the special circumstances that petitioner

committed multiple murders and that each murder was committed in the course of a robbery. 

Case 5:11-cv-03062-EJD Document 75 Filed 12/18/18 Page 1 of 4
Case No.: 11-cv-03062-EJD

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE MOTION TO FILE AMENDED PETITION AND 

FOR CONTINUED STAY

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 California

Petitioner was sentenced to death. The Supreme Court of California affirmed his conviction and

sentence. People v. Smith, 40 Cal. 4th 483 (2007).

On June 6, 2006, petitioner filed his state petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The Supreme 

Court of California denied this petition on June 15, 2011. Following the grant of equitable tolling, 

petitioner filed a federal habeas petition on November 28, 2012. On September 11, 2013, this 

Court granted petitioner’s motion for a stay pending exhaustion of claims in state court. ECF Dkt. 

No. 52. Petitioner filed an exhaustion petition on May 19, 2014. That petition remains pending 

before the California Supreme Court.

LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) allows pleading amendments “with leave of court” 

any time during a proceeding. A pleading may be amended once as a “matter of course” before a 

responsive pleading is served. Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 15(a). When proposed claims in an 

amendment are barred by the statute of limitations, Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 15(c)(2) provides for the 

relation back of claims to the original pleading if the claims asserted in the amended pleading arise 

out of the conduct, transaction or occurrence set forth in the original pleading. In Mayle v. Felix, 

545 U.S. 644, 654 (2005), the United States Supreme Court held that “so long as the original and 

amended petitions state claims that are tied to a common core of operative facts, relation back will 

be in order.”

Petitioner concedes that the one-year statute of limitations imposed on his petition by the 

Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act has run. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1), ECF Dkt. 

No. 67 at 5, ECF Dkt. No. 71 at 2. Petitioner’s requested amendment may be warranted if he 

demonstrates that his new claims relate back to claims contained in his petition. Mayle, 545 U.S. 

at 654; King v. Ryan, 564 F.3d 1133, 1142-43 (9th Cir. 2009).

Petitioner fails to make this showing. In fact, petitioner declines to identify the changes 

incorporated into his amended petition beyond stating that it contains previously pled claims, as 

well as “additional facts and circumstances relating to those claims”. ECF Dkt. No. 71 at 1. 

Case 5:11-cv-03062-EJD Document 75 Filed 12/18/18 Page 2 of 4
Case No.: 11-cv-03062-EJD

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE MOTION TO FILE AMENDED PETITION AND 

FOR CONTINUED STAY

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 California

Petitioner contends that respondent “is not entitled to a track-changes document as to an amended 

petition” and “can do his own document comparison”. Id. at 5. 

Having failed to even identify his proposed amendments, petitioner clearly has not 

demonstrated that any proposed amendments relate back to claims in his original petition. Absent 

such a showing, petitioner’s proposed amendments are time-barred. See, e.g., Chavarria v. 

Hamlet, 2010 WL 1461040 at * 3 (“[w]here an amendment is sought to reopen a habeas action

that has been stayed to allow the petitioner to exhaust claims not in the original petition, the 

newly-exhausted claims must “relate-back” to the timely, exhausted claims in the original 

petition”).

Petitioner argues that his request for amendment is supported by Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 

U.S. 408 (2005). In Pace, the United States Supreme Court stated, in dicta, that a “petitioner’s 

reasonable confusion about whether a state filing would be timely will ordinarily constitute ‘good 

faith’ for him to file in federal court.” Id. at 416. Pace in no way compels the amendment of 

petitioner’s petition.

Respondent further contends that although he will “someday” explain how his amendments 

relate back to claims in his original petition, it is not necessary to do so at this juncture. ECF Dkt. 

No. 71 at 6. The grant or denial of an amendment however, is not warranted if amendment is 

futile. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962) (leave to amend should be freely given unless 

amendment is futile, untimely, prejudicial or sought in bad faith or with a dilatory motive); Wyatt 

v. McDonald, 2011 WL 6100611 at *7 (petitioner’s motion to amend his petition would be futile 

because new claims are time-barred by statute of limitations). Petitioner has failed to demonstrate 

that amendment of his petition is warranted.

//

//

//

Case 5:11-cv-03062-EJD Document 75 Filed 12/18/18 Page 3 of 4
Case No.: 11-cv-03062-EJD

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE MOTION TO FILE AMENDED PETITION AND 

FOR CONTINUED STAY

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 California

CONCLUSION

For the above-mentioned reason, petitioner’s motion is DENIED. Additionally, 

petitioner’s Administrative Motion To File Exhibits To Amended Petition Under Seal, filed 

concurrently with his Motion To File Amended Petition, is DENIED as moot. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 18, 2018

______________________________________

EDWARD J. DAVILA

United States District Judge

Case 5:11-cv-03062-EJD Document 75 Filed 12/18/18 Page 4 of 4