Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01629/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01629-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TAYLOR STEVEN LANGENDORF, 

Petitioner,

 vs.

RICHARD KIRKLAND, Warden,

Respondent.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 05-1629 JSW (PR)

ORDER STAYING AND

ADMINISTRATIVELY

CLOSING HABEAS

PETITION, GRANTING

LEAVE TO AMEND AND

INSTRUCTIONS TO

CLERK

(Docket Nos. 7, 8, 9, 22, 23)

Petitioner, a state prisoner currently incarcerated at Kern Valley State Prison in

Delano, California, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. §

2254. On October 25, 2004, this Court ordered Respondent to show cause why the writ

should not issue as to three of four claims alleged in the petition (docket no. 3). On

January 27, 2005, Respondent filed an answer to the petition with the Court (docket nos.

5). Petitioner has filed a traverse (docket no. 25). 

After the Court ordered Respondent to show cause, Petitioner filed a motion for

leave to file a motion for reconsideration and a reconsideration motion, requesting the

Court to reconsider its dismissal of claim three in the petition for failure to state a claim

for habeas relief (docket nos. 7, 8). In his motions, Petitioner alleges that the original

claim three raised in the petition should have asserted a claim for relief based on

outrageous government conduct in intentionally placing Petitioner in the jail cell for

transportation with a known gang enemy when he did not have a court date, “solely to

secure a conviction(.)” Motion at 2 (docket no. 8). Petitioner also filed a motion to

Case 3:05-cv-01629-JSW Document 26 Filed 09/28/06 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

27

28 2

amend the petition based on new information (docket no. 9), specifically, that he learned

on December 1, 2005 that certain materials documenting the jail’s policies and lists for

transportation, which defense counsel had subpoenaed, had not been returned by the jail. 

In the motion, Petitioner apparently seeks to amend his petition to add another new claim

under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) and Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995). 

It is unclear from the motion whether Petitioner is also seeking to add an additional

ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Petitioner further asserts in the motion that the

unreturned subpoenaed documents would have substantiated claims one and three in the

original petition (docket no. 1). Petitioner’s motions to amend the petition are

GRANTED (docket nos. 7, 8, 9) to the extent that the Court will allow Petitioner to file

an amended petition including these additional claims at such time that they have been

exhausted in the state courts. 

Petitioner asserts in the motion to amend the petition that these claims have not

been exhausted before the California Supreme Court and requests leave to do so “if the

Court grants the motion and deems it necessary” (docket no. 9). This Court will construe

Petitioner’s request as a motion seeking leave to stay the petition while he returns to the

state courts to exhaust his claims before the California Supreme Court, which is now

GRANTED (docket no. 9). 

DISCUSSION

The exhaustion requirement requires that prisoners in state custody who wish to

challenge collaterally in federal habeas proceedings either the fact or duration of their

confinement first exhaust state judicial remedies, either on direct appeal or through

collateral proceedings, by presenting the highest state court available with a fair

opportunity to rule on the merits of each and every claim they seek to raise in federal

court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b),(c); Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 515-16 (1982);

Duckworth v. Serrano, 454 U.S. 1, 3 (1981). The exhaustion-of-state-remedies doctrine

Case 3:05-cv-01629-JSW Document 26 Filed 09/28/06 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

27

28 3

reflects a policy of federal-state comity to give the state "'the initial "opportunity to pass

upon and correct" alleged violations of its prisoners' federal rights.'" Picard v. Connor,

404 U.S. 270, 275 (1971) (citations omitted). A federal district court must dismiss a

habeas petition containing any claim as to which state remedies have not been exhausted. 

See Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. at 522. However, the dismissal must be with leave to

amend to delete the unexhausted claims; if they are deleted, the court can then consider

those which remain. See Anthony v. Cambra, 236 F.3d 568, 574 (9th Cir. 2000). Also,

the court has the power to grant a stay of the federal proceeding while petitioner goes

back to state court to exhaust additional claims. Rhines v. Webber, 125 S. Ct. 1528,

1535 (2005). 

The evidence before the Court indicates that Petitioner did not exhaust his state

court remedies as to several claims now pending before this Court. Based on Petitioner’s

assertion that his petition contains both exhausted claims and an unexhausted claim, the

Court finds that it is a mixed petition. Petitioner cannot go forward in federal court with

a mixed petition. See id.; Guizar v. Estelle, 843 F.2d 371, 372 (9th Cir. 1988). 

However, Petitioner has also requested the Court to grant him leave to exhaust the

unexhausted claims in the state courts. Based on the allegations in his motion to amend

(docket no. 9), this Court now finds that Petitioner has shown (1) good cause for his

failure to exhaust the issues based on newly discovered evidence; and (2) shown that the

issues are “potentially meritorious.” See Rhines, 125 S. Ct. at 1535.

A district court may stay a petition pending a petitioner’s exhaustion of additional

claims, with the intention of allowing an amendment after exhaustion to add the newly

exhausted claims. See Id.; Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063, 1070 (9th Cir. 2003);

Calderon v. United States Dist. Court (Taylor), 134 F.3d 981, 989 (9th Cir. 1998). 

Accordingly, Petitioner’s request for a stay is GRANTED, subject to the conditions set

forth below, and this action is hereby STAYED until thirty days after the California

Case 3:05-cv-01629-JSW Document 26 Filed 09/28/06 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

27

28 4

Supreme Court’s final decision on Petitioner’s claims.

Once the California Supreme Court has issued a decision on Petitioner’s now

unexhausted claims, Petitioner shall promptly notify the Court. Within thirty days of

such decision, Petitioner may file an amended petition containing all claims he intends to

pursue here, including the newly exhausted claims and any claims he wishes the Court to

consider from his original petition. If Petitioner chooses to file an amended petition, he

must include the caption and civil case number used in this order (No. C-05-1629 JSW

(PR)) and the words AMENDED PETITION on the first page, and Petitioner may not

incorporate material from the original petition by reference. 

If Petitioner wishes to have this Court consider his now unexhausted claims

in an amended petition, he must properly present these claims to the Supreme

Court of California within thirty days of the date this order is filed, and thereafter

file an amended petition in this Court within thirty days of the California Supreme

Court’s decision containing all of his claims. If Petitioner fails to do so, this matter

shall proceed on Petitioner’s petition currently pending before the Court and the

Court will not consider Petitioner’s other claims.

Petitioner has also filed a motion requesting the Court to grant the petition based

on Respondent’s failure to file an answer (docket no. 22). That motion is now DENIED

as moot (docket no. 22), as is Petitioner’s motion seeking an extension of time in which

to file the traverse (docket no. 23). 

The clerk shall administratively close the file pending the stay of this action. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 28, 2006

 JEFFREY S. WHITE

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-01629-JSW Document 26 Filed 09/28/06 Page 4 of 4