Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01543/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01543-4/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

—o0o—

MICHAEL GONZALES, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

SHRIBER, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:05-cv-01543-LJO-TAG HC

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR REVIEW

OF PETITION DUE TO CENSORING ISSUES

AND STAY AND ABEYANCE MOTION

(Doc. 15)

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

BACKGROUND

On December 2, 2005, Petitioner filed the instant habeas petition challenging his

conviction in Kings County Superior Court for gassing, a violation of California Penal Code sec.

4501.1, and his sentence under California’s Three Strikes law to an indeterminate term of

twenty-five years to life. (Doc. 1). On April 25, 2006, Petitioner filed the instant motion for

“review of petition due to censoring of issues and stay and abeyance motion.” (Doc. 15). In his 

motion, Petitioner recounts the difficulties he experienced attempting to exhaust certain issues in

the California Supreme Court and expressed concern that prison authorities were censoring his

filings or otherwise preventing those filings from being sent to the proper courts. (Id. at pp. 1-2). 

Specifically, Petitioner is concerned about two habeas corpus filings in the California Supreme

Courts: Case numbers S134759 and S139649. The motion itself is only seven pages in length,

but has appended over two hundred pages of materials. 

///

Case 1:05-cv-01543-LJO -JLT Document 20 Filed 02/26/07 Page 1 of 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

2

The Court has endeavored to comprehend precisely what Petitioner is requesting and, as

best it can determine, it appears that Petitioner is concerned that if and when his state habeas

issues have been exhausted, he will be outside the one-year statute of limitations under 

§ 2244(d)(1) of the 1996 Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (the “AEDPA”) for

filing a federal habeas petition. Accordingly, it appears that Petitioner is requesting an expedited

review of his claims in order to determine if all claims have been exhausted; alternatively, it

appears Petitioner is requesting a stay of proceedings in order for him to exhaust any claims that

are not fully exhausted and then leave to amend his petition to add them once exhausted.

For the reasons discussed below, the Court will deny Petitioner’s motion.

DISCUSSION

A cursory review by this Court of the docket of the California Supreme Court indicates

that on May 10, 2006, just a few days after Petitioner filed this motion, the California Supreme

Court denied the habeas corpus petitions in both case nos. S134759 and S139649. Thus, to the

extent that Petitioner had concerns about exhausting the claims in those cases, that concern has

been resolved by the passage of time: The state petitions were denied by the state’s highest court

and therefore any claims contained therein have been fully exhausted under the AEDPA. 

Petitioner also requests that this Court conduct a preliminary review of the claims raised

in state court and in the instant petition to determine if either exhaustion or statute of limitations

problems exist. The Court must of course conduct a preliminary screening of each petition

pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases. In that screening, the Court must

dismiss a petition "[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the petition . . . that the petitioner is not

entitled to relief." Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases; Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d

490 (9th Cir.1990). Otherwise, the Court will order Respondent to respond to the petition. Rule

5 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases. 

Case management at the Court proceeds by the order in which the cases are received. 

This includes screening of habeas petitions pursuant to the AEDPA. The Court is aware of the

existence of Petitioner’s case and the length of time that it has been pending. Unfortunately, due

to the caseload of the Court, the conduct of an initial screening often takes time. Petitioner’s

Case 1:05-cv-01543-LJO -JLT Document 20 Filed 02/26/07 Page 2 of 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

3

case will be screened in due course. The Court does not take cases “out of turn,” nor does it

issue “advisory” reviews of a petitioner’s claims in order to facilitate an individual petitioner’s

ability to preemptively avoid either exhaustion or statute of limitations problems under the

AEDPA. 

Moreover, given the fact that Petitioner has already exhausted any claims contained in his

state habeas proceedings, his alternate request for a stay of proceedings to exhaust those issues is

groundless and will be denied. The point of granting a stay of proceedings is to permit the state

courts to act. Here, however, the state courts have already acted and thus no stay is merited.

However, the Court notes that Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 15(a) provides in

pertinent part that “[a] party may amend the party’s pleading once as a matter of course at any

time before a responsive pleading is served....” Here, no responsive pleading has been served;

accordingly, Petitioner may submit an amended petition containing any newly exhausted claims

without leave of the Court. Moreover, assuming the claims “relate back” to the instant petition,

then the original filing date of December 2, 2005 will remain the operative date for determining

issues related to the AEDPA’s one-year statute of limitations. The decision to file an amended

petition lies with Petitioner. The Court does not provide legal advice to the parties and is

expressing no view here regarding what Petitioner need do.

ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner’s Motion for Review of Petition Due to Censoring if

Issues and Stay and Abeyance Motion (Doc. 15), is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 23, 2007 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:05-cv-01543-LJO -JLT Document 20 Filed 02/26/07 Page 3 of 3