Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_96-cv-06252/USCOURTS-caed-1_96-cv-06252-4/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

---

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

96dp06252.OGrntgMo2FileAPetn.Ray.wpd 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CLARENCE RAY, JR., )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. )

)

Robert L. Ayers, Jr., as Warden of )

San Quentin State Prison, )

)

Respondent. )

)

Case No. 1:96-CV-06252-LJO

DEATH PENALTY CASE

ORDER VACATING HEARING DATE AND

GRANTING PETITIONER’S MOTION TO

LIFT ABEYANCE ORDER FOR PURPOSE

OF FILING AMENDED PETITION

VACATED HEARING DATE: June 18, 2007

This matter is before the Court on the request of Petitioner Clarence Ray, Jr. (“Ray”) to lift the

abeyance order currently in effect to permit him to file his proposed Amended Petition. Respondent

Robert L. Ayers, Jr., as Warden of San Quentin State Prison (the “Warden”) has filed a “conditional”

non-opposition reserving defenses and arguments he may choose to advance later in the proceedings.

I. Background.

On June 13, 2006, Ray filed his initial federal Petition for a writ of habeas corpus and on the

same day a motion to hold federal proceedings in abeyance. At the time, Ray’s first state habeas

petition, originally filed on November 14, 1996, had been denied as untimely and on the merits by the

California Supreme Court. The state court’s denial of Ray’s first state habeas petition was dated April

3, 2003. A second state habeas petition, filed on September 27, 2002, however, was (and is) pending.

The second state habeas petition contests Ray’s death sentence as unconstitutional because he is mentally

retarded. See Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002).

The Warden strenuously contested Ray’s abeyance motion on the dual grounds that some of the

claims contained in the federal Petition had not been exhausted in state court and, separately, that the

Case 1:96-cv-06252-LJO-SAB Document 39 Filed 06/06/07 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

96dp06252.OGrntgMo2FileAPetn.Ray.wpd 2

Petition was untimely. The Court granted Ray’s motion for abeyance on July 20, 2006, but specifically

declined to rule on the timeliness of the Petition or the exhaustion status of claims contained in the

Petition, instead reserving those arguments for closer consideration upon the conclusion of state court

proceedings.

On March 14, 2007, Ray filed a third state habeas petition, which is supported by substantial

evidence developed during his federal habeas investigation. Both the second and third state habeas

petitions are pending before the California Supreme Court.

II. The Present Request.

Ray describes his present motion as “a simple housekeeping matter” so that his operative federal

Petition will conform to constitutional claims previously presented to the California Supreme Court.

He further represents that any disputes between the parties regarding procedural or substantive issues

can be litigated once state proceedings have concluded.

III. The Warden’s Response and Concerns.

In describing his non-opposition to Ray’s present motion as “conditional,” the Warden expressly

reserves all defenses to the claims presented in the Amended Petition, including those relative to the

statute of limitations, the relation back doctrine, and exhaustion. The Warden further clarifies that he

does not concede abeyance of federal proceedings should continue indefinitely, or that in this case,

abeyance should remain in effect until Ray’s state proceedings are concluded, if his outstanding state

petitions “continue to remain unresolved.” TheWarden reserves the right to request the Court to resume

federal proceedings in the future. 

IV. Resolution.

With the exception of Ray’s obligation to file quarterly status reports on the progress of state

proceedings, the July 20, 2006 order held in abeyance all litigation in this federal action. Accordingly,

Ray appropriately has requested permission to lift the abeyance orderto permit the filing of his Amended

Petition. There being no opposition to the filing of the Amended Petition, Ray is authorized to do so.

Although Ray attached a copy of the proposed Amended Petition to his present motion, the actual

Amended Petition has not been filed. Nor is the proposed Petition complete; it refers to exhibits

attached to the original federal Petition. When Ray actually files his Amended Petition, pursuant to this

Case 1:96-cv-06252-LJO-SAB Document 39 Filed 06/06/07 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

96dp06252.OGrntgMo2FileAPetn.Ray.wpd 3

Order, all pertinent exhibits shall be attached to the pleading. He need not, however, attach excerpts

from the state record. 

All claims and defenses raised bythe allegations in theAmended Petition are to be litigated when

federal proceedings are resumed, whether upon conclusion of state proceedings, or following a

successful motion of either party. The Court cautions, however, that so long as a valid state habeas

petition is pending in state court, this Court will not venture to reach either the issue of statutory or

equitable tolling of the statute of limitations. Such effort would be totally wasted were the California

Supreme Court to decide that Ray is entitled to relief. The Court is interested in conserving scarce

judicial resources. Accordingly, the parties are advised that the Court is not inclined to address any

procedural or substantive issues raised by the Amended Petition prior to the conclusion of state habeas

proceedings, absent very compelling circumstances.

The moving and responding arguments are clearly and adequately set forth in the parties’

respective points and authorities. The Court declines to conduct a hearing on this matter, either in

person or telephonically. The hearing, currently set for June 18, 2007 at 8:30 a.m. is vacated.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: June 5, 2007 

 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

 Lawrence J. O’Neill

 United States District Judge

Case 1:96-cv-06252-LJO-SAB Document 39 Filed 06/06/07 Page 3 of 3