Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00122/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00122-4/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

27

28

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAMIEN WAFFORD,

Petitioner,

v.

CONNIE GIPSON, Warden,

Respondent.

1:12-cv-0122 MJS HC 

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER'S 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND 

RE-OPENING CASE

ORDER VACATING STAY AND 

ORDERING PETITIONER TO FILE AN 

AMENDED PETITION CONTAINING ONLY 

CLAIMS ONE AND TWO WITHIN THIRTY 

DAYS

[Docs. 15-16, 18-19]

Petitioner is proceeding with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2254. He is represented by Gregory H. Mitts, Esq.

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On January 10, 2012, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus. The 

matter originally was stayed. On October 30, 2013, the Court ordered Petitioner to show 

cause why the stay should not be vacated. (ECF No. 12.) Petitioner was provided two 

weeks to respond to the order to show cause. Petitioner did not file a response before 

the expiration of the two week period on November 13, 2013. The Court dismissed the 

petition on November 21, 2013 for failure to follow a court order. 

Case 1:12-cv-00122-LJO-MJS Document 20 Filed 12/10/13 Page 1 of 6
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

On November 26, 2013, Petitioner filed a request to vacate dismissal of the 

petition and a response to the order to show cause why the stay should not be vacated. 

(See ECF Nos. 15-16, 18-19.) The Court shall address Petitioner's filings in turn. 

II. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Here, Petitioner filed a request to vacate the dismissal of the petition. To the 

extent that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are not inconsistent with the statutory 

provisions or rules governing federal habeas corpus, they may be applied. See Rule 12, 

Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Accordingly Petitioner's request to vacate shall be 

considered as a motion for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1). 

Rule 60(b)(1) provides as follows: "On motion and just terms, the court may 

relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for 

the following reasons: [ ] mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect."

Excusable neglect "encompass[es] situations in which the failure to 

comply with a filing deadline is attributable to negligence," Pioneer Inv. 

Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd., 507 U.S. 380, 394, 113 S. Ct. 1489, 

123 L. Ed. 2d 74 (1993), and includes "omissions caused by 

carelessness," id. at 388. The determination of whether neglect is 

excusable "is at bottom an equitable one, taking account of all relevant 

circumstances surrounding the party's omission." Id. at 395. To determine 

when neglect is excusable, we conduct the equitable analysis specified in 

Pioneer by examining "at least four factors: (1) the danger of prejudice to 

the opposing party; (2) the length of the delay and its potential impact on 

the proceedings; (3) the reason for the delay; and (4) whether the movant 

acted in good faith." Bateman, 231 F.3d at 1223-24 (citing Pioneer, 507 

U.S. at 395). 

Lemoge v. United States, 587 F.3d 1188 (9th Cir. 2009).

Petitioner's counsel in his motion for reconsideration explains that severe health 

concerns and a loss of electronic client files contributed to his oversight in timely 

responding to the order to show cause. Specifically, counsel had heart surgery in late 

May 2013, from which he is still recovering, and then spinal surgery on November 15, 

2013, after expiration of the period for responding to the order to show cause. Further, 

counsel states that his work computer contracted a virus causing him to loose client files 

weeks before the order to show cause was issued. 

First, counsel is admonished for failing to attempt to respond, or at minimum, file a 

Case 1:12-cv-00122-LJO-MJS Document 20 Filed 12/10/13 Page 2 of 6
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

request for extension of time to respond to the order to show cause. A short, one page 

response or request for extension of time would have prevented this Court from 

dismissing the petition. Such a response could have been prepared even if counsel was 

not in possession of Petitioner's file. 

However, based on the events described by counsel, the court finds that there 

was excusable neglect for the failure to respond to the order to show cause. Based on 

counsel's severe health problems, the Court finds that his failure to timely respond could 

have been inadvertent or based on excusable neglect due to the side effects from his 

prior surgery and the need to prepare for spinal surgery several days after the deadline 

for filing the order to show cause. 

The Pioneer factors also weigh in Petitioner's favor. There has been no prejudice 

to Respondent. Respondent has yet to be served with the petition and therefore has not 

had to perform any additional work due to the dismissal of the matter. Also, the delay 

was minimal. Petitioner filed the instant motion for reconsideration within a week of the 

dismissal of the petition. Accordingly, Petitioner's motion for reconsideration is 

GRANTED. The Court shall order the Clerk of Court to re-open the matter. 

III. RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Petitioner, in his response to the order to show cause why the stay should not be 

vacated, describes his efforts to exhaust state remedies with regard to the third and 

fourth claims of the petition. 

Petitioner was convicted on October 16, 2008.1 Petitioner sought direct review of 

his conviction. Ultimately, the California Supreme Court denied his petition for review on 

November 2, 2010. 

Petitioner filed for collateral post-conviction relief by way of a petition for writ of 

habeas corpus in the Kern County Superior Court on December 16, 2011. The petition 

 

1 All of the following dates and information a have been described by Petitioner in his response to 

the order to show cause. As the Court has not been provided copies of the relevant documents, it cannot 

verify, but assumes, the accuracy of the information provided. 

Case 1:12-cv-00122-LJO-MJS Document 20 Filed 12/10/13 Page 3 of 6
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

was denied on January 20, 2012. While the state petition was pending, Petitioner filed 

the instant federal petition on January 11, 2012. On September 18, 2012, the Court 

stayed the instant petition under Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2003). The Court 

struck the unexhausted claims (claims three and four) from the petition, and 

administratively stayed the petition. 

Over three months later on February 4, 2013, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of 

habeas with the California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District. The court denied the 

petition on June 18, 2013. Petitioner asserts that he is in the process of attempting to 

discover sealed records regarding Petitioner's Marsden hearing, and that Petitioner may 

file a subsequent petition to the Fifth District Court of Appeal, but has yet to do so. 

Even taking account of counsel's severe health problems, the Court finds that 

Petitioner has delayed in attempting to exhaust claims three and four in state court. 

Since the filing of this federal petition nearly two years ago, Petitioner delayed over a 

year after the denial of the habeas petition in the Kern County Superior Court to file a 

petition with the California Court of Appeal. That delay occurred before counsel's heart 

surgery. Over five months have passed since his petition filed with the California Court of 

Appeal was denied. Moreover, Petitioner states an intention to file a subsequent petition 

with the Court of Appeal rather than file a petition with the California Supreme Court to 

properly exhaust his claims. 

Petitioner was convicted over five years ago, his direct appeals were denied over 

three years ago, and the present petition has been pending for nearly two years. As 

discussed by the Supreme Court, the stay and abeyance procedure is available only in 

limited circumstances because the procedure frustrates AEDPA's objective of 

encouraging finality and streamlining federal habeas proceedings. Rhines v. Weber, 544 

U.S. 277 (2005).

A mixed petition should not be stayed indefinitely... Without time 

limits, petitioners could frustrate AEDPA's goal of finality by dragging out 

indefinitely their federal habeas review. Thus, district courts should place 

reasonable time limits on a petitioner's trip to state court and back. See, 

e.g., Zarvela, 254 F.3d, at 381 ("[District courts] should explicitly condition 

Case 1:12-cv-00122-LJO-MJS Document 20 Filed 12/10/13 Page 4 of 6
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

5

the stay on the prisoner's pursuing state court remedies within a brief 

interval, normally 30 days, after the stay is entered and returning to federal 

court within a similarly brief interval, normally 30 days after state court 

exhaustion is completed"). And if a petitioner engages in abusive litigation 

tactics or intentional delay, the district court should not grant him a stay at 

all. See id., at 380-381. 

Rhines, 544 U.S. at 277-78.

Petitioner's delay in attempting to exhaust the claims of his petition has frustrated 

this Court's attempt to adjudicate Petitioner's claims in a timely manner. Accordingly the 

court hereby orders the stay vacated, and claims three and four of the petition are 

dismissed without prejudice. Petitioner is ordered to file an amended petition containing 

only claims one and two of the original petition within thirty (30) days of the date of 

issuance of this order. Should Petitioner exhaust claims three and four in state court, he 

may move to amend the present petition to add the claims if this petition is still pending. 

The Court declines at this time to decide if the claims, once exhausted, can properly be 

added to the federal petition within AEDPA's one year limitation period. If the present 

petition is no longer pending, Petitioner may move before the Ninth Circuit to file a 

second or successive petition containing the exhausted claims. See 28 U.S.C § 2244(b). 

III. ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petitioner's motion for 

reconsideration is GRANTED and the Clerk of Court shall re-open the present matter.

It is also ORDERED that the stay is vacated and that Petitioner shall file an 

amended petition containing claims one and two of the original petition within thirty (30) 

days of the date of issuance of this order. 

Petitioner is forewarned that failure to follow this order will result in dismissal of 

the petition pursuant to Local Rule 110.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 9, 2013 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

Case 1:12-cv-00122-LJO-MJS Document 20 Filed 12/10/13 Page 5 of 6
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

6

ci4d6

Case 1:12-cv-00122-LJO-MJS Document 20 Filed 12/10/13 Page 6 of 6