Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01786/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01786-2/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

TYRONE POWELL, 

Petitioner, No. CIV S-05-1786 GEB KJM P

vs.

DAVID RUNNELS, ORDER AND

Respondent. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Petitioner is a state prison inmate proceeding pro se with a petition for a writ of

habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He challenges his Sacramento County convictions for

assault with a firearm and shooting into an inhabited dwelling on three grounds: (1) the

prosecutor failed to release exculpatory evidence to the defense as required by Brady v.

Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963); (2) ineffective assistance of trial counsel in failing to present alibi

witnesses, to explore discrepancies between police reports and witnesses’ statements, and failing

to secure a mistrial when an important defense witness died, among other things; and (3) the

prosecutor elicited inadmissible evidence. 

Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that ground two of the petition

has not been exhausted in state court. Petitioner has opposed the motion and filed a request for a 

/////

Case 2:05-cv-01786-GEB -KJM Document 18 Filed 12/21/06 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

stay of these proceedings to permit him to exhaust his state remedies, a request respondent has

opposed.

I. Exhaustion Of State Remedies

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,

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 (1971); Middleton v.

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

Respondent has lodged a copy of the Petition for Review filed in the California

Supreme Court in petitioner’s case in May 2004. It raises a single ground: petitioner was denied

a fair trial because prejudicial hearsay identifying him as the shooter was improperly put before

the jury. Lodged Document A. A perusal of the state petition itself satisfies the court that this

corresponds to ground three of the federal habeas petition. Accordingly, the two other issues in

the federal habeas petition are not exhausted. 

II. Staying The Proceedings

Petitioner has requested a stay of the proceedings to allow him to exhaust his state

remedies as to his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. He argues that this claim was not

exhausted earlier because appellate counsel would not include it in the direct appeal. He also

argues that appellate counsel delayed in sending his trial transcripts, which slowed his

investigation. Respondent has opposed the request on the ground that petitioner must have been 

aware of trial counsel’s failures since the time of his conviction, which was in December 2002. 

Neither party addresses the Brady claim included as petitioner’s first claim in the federal habeas

petition. 

/////

Case 2:05-cv-01786-GEB -KJM Document 18 Filed 12/21/06 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

In Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005), the Supreme Court held:

[I]t likely would be an abuse of discretion for a district court to

deny a stay. . . if the petitioner had good cause for this failure to

exhaust, his unexhausted claims are potentially meritorious, and

there is no indication that the petitioner engaged in intentionally

dilatory litigation tactics.

Id. at 278. Petitioner does not explain how his investigation of counsel’s ineffectiveness, which

flows from what counsel failed to do at trial, was hampered by his delayed access to his trial

transcripts. However, portions of his claim may rest on proceedings at trial: petitioner claims

that counsel did not act to protect his rights at trial when an important witness died. Because this

portion of the claim, and others, may be based on events at trial, this court will not penalize

petitioner for waiting until he received his transcripts to pursue his claim of ineffective

assistance of counsel. Although it would have been preferable for petitioner to file his claims in

the state court before pursuing his federal remedies, the instant petition appears to be a

“protective petition,” filed as a hedge against the statute of limitations. Pace v. DiGuglielmo,

544 U.S. 408, 415-16 (2005). Moreover, because the prosecutor’s alleged failure to release

Brady material may have been discussed at trial, and the discussion memorialized in the trial

transcript, the delay in raising the claim does not appear to flow from intentional delay.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Petitioner’s July 21, 2006 request for a stay is granted.

2. Petitioner shall file his state exhaustion petition within thirty days of the date

of this order.

3. Within ninety days of the date of this order, petitioner shall file a status report

on the progress of the state exhaustion petition.

4. If the state exhaustion proceeding is not completed within one hundred eighty

days of the date of this order, petitioner shall file a second status report, and further reports at

ninety day intervals until the exhaustion process is completed.

/////

Case 2:05-cv-01786-GEB -KJM Document 18 Filed 12/21/06 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

5. Within thirty days of the California Supreme Court’s resolution of the state

action, petitioner shall file a motion to lift the stay together with either a motion to dismiss the

action or a motion to file an amended petition, along with a copy of the proposed amended

petition.

6. Petitioner is advised his failure to comply with the time limits of this order

may result in an order lifting the stay.

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that respondent’s June 16, 2006 motion to

dismiss be denied. 

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: December 20, 2006.

2

powe1786.157

Case 2:05-cv-01786-GEB -KJM Document 18 Filed 12/21/06 Page 4 of 4