Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00357/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00357-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 535
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Death Penalty
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Ptn for Writ of H/C - Stay of Execution

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

COLIN RAKER DICKEY, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. )

)

ROBERT L. AYERS, Jr., Warden )

of San Quentin State Prison, )

)

Respondent. )

)

Case No. CIV. F-06-357-AWI-P

DEATH PENALTY CASE

Order Regarding Respondent’s

Motion to Dismiss

Petitioner Colin Raker Dickey (“Dickey”) filed his federal petition July 10,

2007. Counsel for Dickey and counsel for Respondent Robert L. Ayers, Jr. (“the

Warden”) filed a Joint Statement on Exhaustion January 15, 2008. The Warden

filed a motion to dismiss based on failure to exhaust state remedies for all claims

on March 3, 2008.

The Warden advocates dismissing Dickey’s mixed federal petition based

on Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (1982), but fails to comment on subsequent cases

Case 1:06-cv-00357-JLT-SAB Document 59 Filed 03/07/08 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

OBrfMtnDismissDky 2

from the United States Supreme Court addressing issues of federal habeas review

and exhaustion of claims in state court under the AEDPA. See Rhines v. Weber,

544 U.S. 269, 276 (2005) (recognizing the discretion of district courts to stay and

hold in abeyance mixed habeas petitions during exhaustion of federal claims in

state court) and Pace v. Digluglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 416 (2005) (approving the stay

and abey procedure where there is reasonable confusion about state timeliness

procedures). Alternatively, the Warden suggests that Dickey withdraw his

unexhausted claims and proceed with his fully-exhausted federal petition.

When a court is presented with a mixed petition, it may not grant relief on

any of the unexhausted claims. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). Prior to the issuance of

Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005), mixed petitions were routinely dismissed, or,

alternatively petitioners were given the option of withdrawing unexhausted

claims and proceeding on fully exhausted petitions. See Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S.

509, 522 (1982), quoted by Jackson v. Roe, 425 F.3d 654, 658 (9th Cir. 2005). A

convoluted withdrawal, abeyance, and re-amend procedure was developed in

the Ninth Circuit in Calderon v. United States District Court (Taylor), 134 F.3d 981,

985 (9th Cir. 1998), that permitted district courts to hold fully exhausted petitions

(with unexhausted claims deleted) in abeyance pending exhaustion in state

courts. Rhines recognized that district courts have the discretion to stay and hold

in abeyance mixed habeas petitions during exhaustion of federal claims in state

court. 544 U.S. at 276. Recognition of this discretion obviates the need for the

withdrawal, abeyance, re-amend procedure developed in Taylor, 134 F. 3d 981.

Under Rhines, abeyance may be ordered in limited circumstances,

restricted by the satisfaction of three requirements. First, there must be good

cause for the petitioner’s failure to have exhausted his claims “first in state

court.” 544 U.S. at 277. Second, the unexhausted claims must not be “plainly

Case 1:06-cv-00357-JLT-SAB Document 59 Filed 03/07/08 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

OBrfMtnDismissDky 3

meritless.” Id. Finally, a mixed petition “should not be stayed indefinitely,”

meaning there should be specific limits on the trip to state court and back to

federal court. Id. at 277-78. If a petitioner has good cause for his failure to

exhaust, has potentially meritorious claims, and is not engaging in abusive

litigation tactics then "it likely would be an abuse of discretion for a district court

to deny a stay and to dismiss a mixed petition." Rhines, 544 U.S. at 277.

The Court in Rhines did not define or give any examples of what may

constitute “good cause” for not presenting unexhausted claims in state court

before filing in federal court, but Pace v. Digluglielmo provides guidance by

suggesting that good cause is satisfied by the existence of “reasonable confusion

about whether a state filing would be timely.” 544 U.S. at 416. California’s

timeliness rules, and their application, are uncertain. See Dennis v. Brown, 361 F.

Supp. 2d 1124, 1133-34 (N.D. Cal. 2005)).

Dickey need not file an opposing brief to the Warden’s motion to dismiss. 

Any opposition by the Warden contesting abeyance in this case should be filed

on or before March 17, 2008.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 6, 2008 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

b64h1h UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00357-JLT-SAB Document 59 Filed 03/07/08 Page 3 of 3