Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-03238/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-03238-2/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

JAMAR ANTOINE FOSTER,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-09-3238 GGH P

vs.

DOMINGO URIBE, JR.,

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On December 4, 2009, petitioner consented to the

jurisdiction of the undersigned. For the following reasons, the unexhausted claims in the petition

are dismissed and respondent is ordered to file a response to the exhausted claims. 

The petition raises the following claims: 1) petitioner’s statement was coerced; 2)

his sentence violates the Sixth Amendment; 3) ineffective assistance of trial and appellate

counsel.

The exhaustion of state court remedies is a prerequisite to the granting of a

petition for writ of habeas corpus. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). If exhaustion is to be waived, it must

be waived explicitly by respondent’s counsel. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(3). A waiver of exhaustion,

Case 2:09-cv-03238-KJN Document 9 Filed 01/14/10 Page 1 of 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

2

thus, may not be implied or inferred. A petitioner satisfies the exhaustion requirement by

providing the highest state court with a full and fair opportunity to consider all claims before

presenting them to the federal court. Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276, 92 S. Ct. 509, 512

(1971); Middleton v. Cupp, 768 F.2d 1083, 1086 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 478 U.S. 1021 (1986). 

After reviewing the petition, it is clear that petitioner’s ineffective assistance of

trial and appellate counsel claims have not been presented to the California Supreme Court. 

Petitioner’s Sixth Amendment claim also may not be exhausted.

Petitioner’s option is either to voluntarily dismiss the unexhausted claims and

proceed on the exhausted claims only or to stay the instant action pending exhaustion of the

unexhausted claims. 

In Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 125 S.Ct. 1528 (2005) the United States

Supreme Court found that a stay and abeyance of a mixed federal petition should be available

only in the limited circumstance that good cause is shown for a failure to have first exhausted the

claims in state court, that the claim or claims at issue potentially have merit and that there has

been no indication that petitioner has been intentionally dilatory in pursuing the litigation. 

Rhines, supra, at 277-78, 125 S.Ct at 1535. 

On December 7, 2009, the undersigned granted petitioner twenty-eight days to file 

briefing addressing whether he wished to dismiss the unexhausted claims and proceed on the

unexhausted claims only or seek a stay to exhaust the unexhausted claims. If petitioner wished

to stay this action, the December 7, 2009, order instructed him to file within twenty-eight days a

motion to stay addressing the Rhines factors. In the alternative, the December 7, 2009, order

stated that petitioner could proceed with a stay request as outlined in King v. Ryan, 564 F.3d

1133 (9th Cir. 2009) citing Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2003). 

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:09-cv-03238-KJN Document 9 Filed 01/14/10 Page 2 of 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

3

On December 21, 2009, petitioner filed a motion to stay. Petitioner does not

identify which claims are not exhausted. Petitioner states that as a result of his “lack of prior

experience in legal matters” he was not aware that his claims were not properly exhausted. 

Petitioner’s lack of legal experience does not constitute good cause justifying his failure to

exhaust his unexhausted claims prior to filing the instant action. See Hughes v. Idaho State Bd.

of Corrections, 800 F.2d 905, 909 (9th Cir. 1986). Accordingly, petitioner’s motion to stay is

denied. It is clear that the ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel claims are

unexhausted. Accordingly, those claims are dismissed. Because the undersigned cannot say for

sure that petitioner’s Sixth Amendment claim is unexhausted, it will not be dismissed. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s December 21, 2009, motion to stay (no. 8) is denied;

2. The unexhausted ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel claims are

dismissed as unexhausted;

3. Respondents are directed to file a response to petitioner’s claims that his

statement was coerced and his sentence violates the Sixth Amendment within sixty days from the

date of this order. See Rule 4, Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases. An answer shall be

accompanied by all transcripts and other documents relevant to the issues presented in the

petition. See Rule 5, Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases;

4. If the response to the habeas petition is an answer, petitioner’s reply, if any,

shall be filed and served within thirty days after service of the answer;

5. If the response to the habeas petition is a motion, petitioner’s opposition or

statement of non-opposition to the motion shall be filed and served within thirty days after

service of the motion, and respondents’ reply, if any, shall be filed and served within fifteen days

thereafter; and

/////

/////

Case 2:09-cv-03238-KJN Document 9 Filed 01/14/10 Page 3 of 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

4

6. The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this order, the

consent/reassignment form contemplated by Appendix A(k) to the Local Rules of this court 

together with a copy of the petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on

Michael Patrick Farrell, Senior Assistant Attorney General.

DATED: January 14, 2010

 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

fos3238.sta

Case 2:09-cv-03238-KJN Document 9 Filed 01/14/10 Page 4 of 4