Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01746/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01746-0/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 - 07cv1746

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES D. ALLEN,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 07-CV-1746-H (AJB)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION

AND DENYING MOTION TO

STAY PETITION

vs.

L.E. SCRIBNER, Warden, et al.,

Defendant.

On September 4, 2007, Petitioner filed a motion to stay his federal petition.

(Doc. No. 3.) On January 23, 2008, following briefing by both parties, the Magistrate

Judge issued a Report and Recommendation denying the motion for a stay, but

providing Petitioner with options for his unexhausted claims. (Doc. No. 17.) The order

provided that Petitioner could file objections on or before February 13, 2008. As of the

date of this order, Petitioner has not filed any objections to the Report and

Recommendation.

In Rhines v. Winter, 544 U.S. 269, 278 (2005), the Supreme Court directed courts

to stay federal petitions in limited cases where “petitioner had good cause for his failure

to exhaust, his unexhausted claims are potentially meritorious, and there is no indication

that the petitioner engaged in intentionally dilatory litigation tactics.” The Court

concludes that the Report and Recommendation properly applied the standard of Rhines

v. Winter in concluding that these circumstances did not constitute good cause for

Case 3:07-cv-01746-H-AJB Document 18 Filed 03/11/08 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 - 07cv1746

applying the stay procedure. Petitioner did not object to this conclusion and did not

advocate the merits of his unexhausted claims when opposing the motion.

Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation and DENIES

the motion for stay. In the Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge set forth

two options for petitioner, and a schedule for each option. In accordance with the

Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, Petitioner may either: (1) voluntarily

dismiss the petition, or (2) formally abandon the unexhausted claims. Based on the

timing of this order, the Court concludes that it should grant Petitioner additional time

to choose his option. Accordingly, the Court amends the schedule set forth in the

Report and Recommendation as follows:

1) First Option: Voluntarily Dismiss the Petition

Petitioner may move to voluntarily dismiss his entire federal petition and return

to state court to exhaust his unexhausted claims. Petitioner may then file a new federal

petition containing only exhausted claims. See Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. at 510, 520-21

(1982) (stating that a petitioner who files a mixed petition may dismiss his petition to

"return[] to state court to exhaust his claims"). If Petitioner chooses this option, he must

file a pleading with this Court on or before April 14, 2008. Respondent may file a reply

on or before May 11, 2008. 

Petitioner is cautioned that any new federal petition must be filed before

expiration of the one-year statute of limitations. Ordinarily, a petitioner has one year

from when his conviction became final to file his federal petition, unless he can show

that statutory or equitable "tolling" applies. Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167, 176

(2001); 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). Filing a petition in federal court does not stop the statute

of limitations from running. Id. at 181-82; Frye v. Hickman, 273 F.3d 1144, 1145-46

(9th Cir. 2001); 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:07-cv-01746-H-AJB Document 18 Filed 03/11/08 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

1

At the time the answer is filed, Respondent shall lodge with the Court all records bearing on

the merits of Petitioner's claims. The lodgments shall be accompanied by a notice of lodgment which

shall be captioned "Notice of Lodgment in 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Habeas Corpus Case — To Be Sent to

Clerk's Office." Respondent shall not combine separate pleadings, orders or other items into a

combined lodgment entry. Each item shall be numbered separately and sequentially.

- 3 - 07cv1746

2) Second Option: Formally Abandon Unexhausted Claim(s)

Petitioner may formally abandon his unexhausted claim(s) and proceed with his

exhausted one(s). See Rose, 455 U.S. at 510, 520-21 (stating that a petitioner who files

a mixed petition may "resubmit[] the habeas petition to present only exhausted claims").

If Petitioner chooses this option, he must file a pleading with this Court on or before

April 14, 2008. Respondent may file a reply on or before May 11, 2008. Petitioner is

cautioned that once he abandons his unexhausted claims, he may lose the ability to ever

raise them in federal court. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 488 (2000) (stating

that a court's ruling on the merits of claims presented in a first § 2254 petition renders

any later petition successive); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (a)-(b).

Respondents shall reply to the options set forth above shall on or before May 11,

2008 by filing a either a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing

§ 2254 or an answer1

 pursuant to Rule 5 of the Rules Governing § 2254 cases. 

If Respondent files a motion to dismiss, Petitioner shall file his opposition, if any,

to the motion no later than June 9, 2008. At the time the opposition is filed, Petitioner

shall lodge with the Court any records not lodged by Respondent which Petitioner

believes may be relevant to the Court's determination of the motion. If Respondent files

an answer, Petitioner may file a traverse to matters raised in the answer no later than

June 16, 2008. Any traverse by Petitioner (a) shall state whether

Petitioner admits or denies each allegation of fact contained in the answer; (b) shall be

limited to facts or arguments responsive to matters raised in the answer; and (c) shall

not raise new grounds for relief that were not asserted in the Petition. Grounds for relief

withheld until the traverse will not be considered. No traverse shall exceed ten (10)

pages in length absent advance leave of Court for good cause shown. 

Case 3:07-cv-01746-H-AJB Document 18 Filed 03/11/08 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 - 07cv1746

A request by a party for an extension of time within which to file any of the

pleadings required by this Order should be made in advance of the due date of the

pleading, and the Court will grant such a request only upon a showing of good cause.

Any such request shall be accompanied by a declaration under penalty of perjury

explaining why an extension of time is necessary.

Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, this case shall be deemed submitted on

the day following the date Petitioner's opposition to a motion to dismiss and/or his

traverse is due. Every document delivered to the Court must include a certificate of

service attesting that a copy of such document was served on opposing counsel (or on

the opposing party, if such party is not represented by counsel). Any document

delivered to the Court without a certificate of service will be returned to the submitting

party and will be disregarded by the Court.

The Magistrate Judge may modify this briefing schedule and procedure upon a

showing of good cause.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 11, 2008

MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

COPIES TO:

All parties of record.

Case 3:07-cv-01746-H-AJB Document 18 Filed 03/11/08 Page 4 of 4