Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00339/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00339-5/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Lonnie Lee Poslof, Jr., a state prisoner, is proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of 

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 1.) Petitioner seeks stay of “all proceedings 

in this action” under the doctrine articulated in Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2003), 

asserting there is an action pending in Merced County Superior Court involving “identical issues 

to those involved in this action.” (Doc. 28 at 1-2.) The matter was referred to a United States 

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

The assigned magistrate judge observed that Petitioner initiated this action with the filing 

of his complaint on February 5, 2021; Respondent filed an answer on July 2, 2021; and Petitioner 

filed his traverse on July 2, 2021. (Doc. 32 at 2.) Thus, the magistrate judge noted the matter was 

fully briefed, and Petitioner did not seek a stay for “more than three years” in the action. (Id.) 

The magistrate judge found “Petitioner seeks to add new grounds” to his Petition, which “is not a 

mixed petition” because all claims alleged in it were exhausted. (Id. at 2-3.) To the extent 

LONNIE LEE POSLOF, JR.,

 Petitioner,

v.

M. ATTCHLEY, Warden,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:21-cv-0339 JLT HBK (HC)

ORDER ADOPTING THE FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING 

PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR STAY AND 

ABEYANCE

(Docs. 28, 32)

Case 1:21-cv-00339-JLT-HBK Document 36 Filed 12/23/24 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

2

Petitioner relied upon the abstention doctrine of Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 44 (1971) and 

the Rooker-Feldman doctrine to support his request for a stay, the magistrate judge found the 

doctrines were inapplicable because Petitioner’s conviction is final and “the Rooker-Feldman 

doctrine is inapplicable to cases seeking habeas corpus relief.” (Id. at 3-4, citation omitted.) 

Further, the magistrate judge found “any new claims would now be time-barred under AEDPA’s 

limitations period,” and Petitioner failed to identify any new claims that related back to the 

exhausted claims in the Petition pending before the Court. (Id. at 4-6.) Therefore, the magistrate 

judge recommended the motion to stay under Kelly be denied. (Id. at 6.)

Petitioner filed objections to the Findings and Recommendations, generally arguing that

the new claims he seeks to exhaust relate back to the grounds already raised in his Petition 

regarding “the trial court’s error of admitting [an] unauthenticated letter.” (Doc. 35 at 2.) 

Petitioner also references a “mixed” state habeas petition filed on September 24, 2023 “with some 

new evidence claims as well as old but not properly argued by his [appellate] counsel.” (Id.)

However, as determined by the magistrate judge, any new claims Petitioner seeks to exhaust are 

time-barred absent any applicable statutory or equitable tolling. (Doc. 32 at 4-5.) Petitioner does 

not make any argument as to any applicable tolling that would extend the long-since expired 

limitations period, nor does Petitioner specifically identify the new claims he seeks to exhaust for 

the Court to determine whether they relate back to the grounds for relief in his Petition. Finally, 

as determined by the magistrate judge, to the extent the Court can discern the new claims 

Petitioner wishes to exhaust, they do not relate back to the exhausted claims. (Id. at 6.)

According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. 

Having carefully reviewed the matter, including Petitioner’s objections, the Court concludes the 

Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 

Having found Petitioner is not entitled to the relief requested, the Court must determine 

whether a certificate of appealability should issue. A petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus 

has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial, and an appeal is only allowed in 

certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335–36 (2003); 28 U.S.C. § 2253. 

Generally, the court may only issue a certificate of appealability “if jurists of reason could 

Case 1:21-cv-00339-JLT-HBK Document 36 Filed 12/23/24 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

3

disagree with the district court’s resolution of [the petitioner’s] constitutional claims or that jurists 

could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.”

Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 327; Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). While Petitioner is not 

required to prove the merits of his case, he must demonstrate “something more than the absence 

of frivolity or the existence of mere good faith on his . . . part.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 338. The 

Court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the determination that the stay be denied 

debatable or wrong, or that issues presented are deserving of encouragement to proceed further.

Petitioner has not made the required substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

Therefore, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. Thus, the Court ORDERS:

1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on November 15, 2024, (Doc. 32), are 

ADOPTED in full.

2. Petitioner’s motion to stay (Doc. 28) is DENIED.

3. The habeas action SHALL proceed on the claims raised in the Petition.

4. The matter is referred to the magistrate judge for further proceedings.

5. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 22, 2024 

Case 1:21-cv-00339-JLT-HBK Document 36 Filed 12/23/24 Page 3 of 3