Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00370/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00370-7/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

KENYATTA LATCHISON,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-07-0370 FCD GGH P

vs.

T. FELKER, Warden, et al., 

Respondents. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding with appointed counsel, filed a petition for

a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has filed a motion to stay and

abey these proceedings pending exhaustion of an unexhausted claim. Petitioner’s counsel states

that review of an extensive file has revealed that, in addition to a claim of prosecutorial

misconduct which has been exhausted, petitioner has an unexhausted claim of ineffective

assistance of counsel based on trial counsel’s failure to object to a second specific instance of

prosecutorial misconduct which resulted in the court of appeal noting that on direct appeal any

such argument had been thereby waived. Motion, p. 3.

Petitioner represents that respondent’s counsel does not oppose petitioner’s

request for a stay. Id., at 4. Petitioner contends that he had initially thought that the issue could

be addressed without this motion and that under the circumstances petitioner is entitled to a stay

Case 2:07-cv-00370-FCD-CHS Document 20 Filed 12/13/07 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

2

pending exhaustion of his additional claim. Id. & n. 1. 

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. 

Petitioner’s counsel does not make clear why the state court of appeals’ decision 

- - wherein a waiver arising from trial counsel’s failure to object to a second instance of

prosecutorial misconduct was evidently specifically referenced, upon which the unexhausted

ineffective assistance claim at issue herein is predicated - - did not constitute adequate notice for

a diligent petitioner to have previously brought this claim before the state supreme court. 

Nevertheless, this court will recommend a stay based on petitioner’s counsel’s contention that

determining the need for the additional claim somehow resulted only after a review of an

extensive record by counsel and because respondent apparently has no objection to the granting

of a stay. 

Petitioner asserts that a draft copy of the state court petition is attached to his

motion; however, no draft petition is included with the motion filed in the court’s electronic

docket. The undersigned observes that the Rhines Court stated that “district courts should place

reasonable time limits on a petitioner’s trip to state court and back.” Rhines, supra, at 278, 125

S. Ct. at 1535. The court is not aware whether or not a state supreme court petition has, in fact,

yet been filed in the state supreme court. Therefore, the court will, in addition to recommending

a stay, also recommend reasonable time limits be set for the state court exhaustion process.

Accordingly, IT IS RECOMMENDED that:

1. Petitioner’s unopposed request for a stay of this habeas petition, filed on

November 30, 2007, be granted and this case be administratively closed;

Case 2:07-cv-00370-FCD-CHS Document 20 Filed 12/13/07 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

3

2. Petitioner be directed to file a state supreme court petition for the purpose of

exhausting the unexhausted claim, if one has not already been filed, within thirty days of

adoption of these findings and recommendations, should that occur;

3. Petitioner be directed to inform this court within thirty days of the filing of the

state supreme court decision as to the claim at issue, so that any stay that may be imposed in this

matter may be lifted and this case proceed.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are advised

that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District

Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: 12/13/07

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009

latc0370.fr

Case 2:07-cv-00370-FCD-CHS Document 20 Filed 12/13/07 Page 3 of 3