Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00466/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00466-4/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

 These proceedings are governed by Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

which permits a party to amend the party’s pleading once as a matter of right any time before a

responsive pleading is filed. See Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644, ,125 S.Ct. 2562, 2569 (2005). 

Petitioner commenced this action by filing his initial petition on January 13, 2006. Petitioner

filed the amended petition before respondent filed an answer. Therefore, the amended petition

was permitted under Rule 15(a).

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VERNON SHAW, III,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-06-0466 LKK EFB P

vs.

R. J. KIRKLAND, Warden,

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner without counsel seeking a writ of habeas corpus. See 28

U.S.C. § 2254. This action proceeds on petitioner’s November 16, 2006, first amended petition.1

Respondent moves to dismiss this action on the ground that the petition contains unexhausted

claims. Petitioner opposes and, while he initially requested the court to stay this action and hold

it in abeyance pending the California Supreme Court’s resolution of a pending habeas corpus

petition, he has notified the court of the completion the proceedings in state court. Accordingly,

he now asserts that he has exhausted his claims. For the reasons explained below, the court finds

Case 2:06-cv-00466-LKK-CHS Document 25 Filed 01/25/07 Page 1 of 5
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

 Petitioner submits his claims on the form petition used in this court. For reasons not

apparent to the court, the first page of the form is paginated as the second page, the second page

is paginated as the third page, and so on.

2

that there remains one unexhausted claim in the federal petition.

I. Procedural History

On January 27, 2003, petitioner was convicted of two counts of attempted murder, three

counts of assault with a semi-automatic firearm, three counts of discharging a firearm from a

vehicle and, given facts justifying the enhancement of the sentence, was sentenced to a term of

98 years to life in prison. Amended Petition at 2.2 Petitioner appealed and on September 15,

2004, the appellate court affirmed the judgment. Amended Petition at 3. On October 6, 2004,

petitioner filed in the California Supreme Court a petition for review of the appellate court’s

disposition of his claims that: (1) the sentence violates due process because the jury was not

required to find beyond a reasonable doubt facts based upon which his sentence was enhanced

beyond the statutory maximum; (2) the trial court erred by refusing defense counsel’s request for

a particular instruction on accomplices; and (3) the trial court erred by instructing the jury with

CALJIC 2.03. Lodged Doc. 1. The California Supreme Court denied review on December 15,

2004. Lodged Doc. 2. On January 16, 2006, petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas

corpus in the California Supreme Court, case number S140504, claiming that: (1) the

identification of him as the perpetrator was unreliable in violation of due process; (2) trial

counsel was ineffective by failing to move to suppress the identification evidence; and (3)

appellate counsel was ineffective by failing to raise on appeal the issue of the unreliable

identification. Lodged Doc. 3.

On January 31, 2006, petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in this court

making the following claims: (1) petitioner’s sentence violates due process because the jury was

not required to find beyond a reasonable doubt facts based upon which his sentence was

enhanced beyond the statutory maximum; (2) petitioner was denied a fair trial by the trial court’s

Case 2:06-cv-00466-LKK-CHS Document 25 Filed 01/25/07 Page 2 of 5
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

refusing defense counsel’s request to give a specific instruction on accomplices; (3) the

introduction into evidence of a replica firearm violated petitioner’s right to a fair trial; (4)

admitting unreliable evidence of eye-witness identification violated petitioner’s right to a fair

trial; (5) appellate counsel was ineffective by failing to raise on appeal the issue of the unreliable

eye-witness identification. Docket # 1. On November 16, 2006, petitioner filed a first-amended

petition in this court raising the following claims: (1) petitioner’s sentence violates due process

because the jury was not required to find beyond a reasonable doubt facts based upon which his

sentence was enhanced beyond the statutory maximum; (2) petitioner was denied a fair trial by

the trial court’s refusing defense counsel’s request to give a specific instruction on accomplices; 

(3) the introduction into evidence of a replica firearm violated petitioner’s right to a fair trial; (4)

admitting unreliable evidence of eye-witness identification violated petitioner’s right to a fair

trial; (5) appellate counsel was ineffective by failing to raise on appeal the trial court’s

permitting introduction of an unreliable eye-witness identification. 

II. Legal Standards

A district court may not grant a petition for a writ of habeas corpus unless “the applicant

has exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the State,” or unless there is no State

corrective process or “circumstances exist that render such process ineffective to protect the

rights of the applicant.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). A petitioner satisfies the exhaustion

requirement by presenting the “substance of his federal habeas corpus claim” to the state courts. 

Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 278 (1971) (no exhaustion where the petitioner presented

operative facts but not legal theory to state courts); see also Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365

(1995)(to exhaust a claim, a state court “must surely be alerted to the fact that the prisoners are

asserting claims under the United States Constitution”). A claim is unexhausted if any state

remedy is available. See O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 848 (1999) (petitioner must seek

discretionary review from state court of last resort); Roberts v. Arave, 874 F.2d 528, 529 (9th

Cir. 1988)(no exhaustion where state supreme court referred petitioner’s appeal of trial court’s

Case 2:06-cv-00466-LKK-CHS Document 25 Filed 01/25/07 Page 3 of 5
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

denial of post-conviction relief to lower appellate court and petitioner failed to appeal lower

court’s disposition of that appeal to state supreme court). For a California prisoner to exhaust, he

must present his claims to the California Supreme Court on appeal in a petition for review or on

post-conviction in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. See Carey v. Saffold, 536 U.S. 223,

239-40 (2002) (describing California’s habeas corpus procedure); Gatlin v. Madding, 189 F.3d

882, 888 (9th Cir. 1999) (to exhaust, prisoner must present claims on appeal to California

Supreme Court in a petition for review). Unless the respondent specifically consents to the court

entertaining unexhausted claims, a mixed petition, i.e., one containing exhausted and

unexhausted claims, ordinarily must be dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(3); Rose v. Lundy,

455 U.S. 509, 522 (1982).

 Notwithstanding the decision in Rose, the court may stay a mixed petition to allow a

petitioner to present unexhausted claims to the state courts. Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 277-

78 (2005). An absolute prerequisite to instituting stay and abeyance in habeas corpus

proceedings is a finding that petitioner demonstrate good cause for his failure to exhaust. Rhines

v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 277 (2005). If the court finds good cause, it nevertheless cannot grant a

stay with respect to claims that “are plainly meritless,” or when the failure to exhaust was a delay

tactic. Rhines, 544 U.S. at 277. 

III. Analysis

As noted above, petitioner initially conceded that two of his claims, i.e., that the

introduction eyewitness identification evidence violated due process and that appellate counsel

was ineffective for failing to raise this issue on appeal, were unexhausted and requested that this

court stay this action and hold it in abeyance until the California Supreme Court ruled on the

habeas petition pending before it. In his November 16, 2006, request for leave to file an

amended petition, petitioner asserts that the California Supreme Court’s order denying his

petition in that court exhausts all grounds in the federal petition. Respondent concedes that the

California Supreme Court’s ruling exhausts petitioner’s fourth and fifth claims, but correctly

Case 2:06-cv-00466-LKK-CHS Document 25 Filed 01/25/07 Page 4 of 5
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

5

asserts that it does not exhaust petitioner’s third claim, i.e., that claim that the introduction into

evidence of a replica firearm violated petitioner’s right to a fair trial. Therefore, the amended

petition contains one exhausted claim. This action must be dismissed without prejudice unless

petitioner either files a second amended petition omitting the unexhausted claim or requests the

court to stay this action and hold it in abeyance while he presents it to the California courts. If

he pursues the latter course he must demonstrate good cause for his failure to present the claim

to the California Supreme Court. He must also show that the claim is not plainly without merit

and that his failure to exhaust the claim was not a delay tactic. Rhines, 544 U.S. at 277. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s July 20, 2006, motion to stay this action and hold it in abeyance is denied;

2. Petitioner has 14 days from the date of this order either to file an amended petition

omitting the claim pertaining to the replica firearm or to request a stay, explaining why this court

should stay this action and hold it in abeyance by making the showing required by the United

States Supreme Court in Rhines. Petitioner’s failure to comply with this order will result in a

recommendation that respondent’s motion to dismiss be granted and that this action be dismissed

without prejudice.

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate docket entry number 15. 

Dated: January 24, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-00466-LKK-CHS Document 25 Filed 01/25/07 Page 5 of 5