Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03366/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03366-0/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)

---

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

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

Citations are to the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pin cites are to the ECF-generated page

numbers at the tops of the documents.

15-cv-3366 LB

ORDER

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Northern District of California

San Francisco Division

DERRELL R. DAVIS, 

Petitioner,

v.

W. L. MONTGOMERY, Warden, 

Respondent.

_____________________________________/

No. 15-cv-3366 LB

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

[Re: ECF Nos. 1, 5, 6] 

INTRODUCTION

Derrell R. Davis, an inmate at the Centinela State Prison, filed this pro se action seeking a writ

of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. His petition is now before the court for review

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2243 and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United

States District Courts. Mr. Davis consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. (ECF No. 5 at 7,

8.)1

 This order requires a response from respondent and permits Mr. Davis to file a new motion to

stay proceedings if he has unexhausted claims he wants to present to the state courts. 

Case 3:15-cv-03366-WHO Document 7 Filed 09/23/15 Page 1 of 5
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

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

15-cv-3366 LB

ORDER 2

STATEMENT

Mr. Davis was convicted in Alameda County Superior Court of murder and possession of a

firearm by a felon, with sentence enhancements for using a firearm and causing great bodily injury

or death, as well as for prior convictions. See People v. Derrell Ronald Davis, Cal. Ct. App. No.

A134279, opinion filed April 30, 2014. He was sentenced to 80 years to life in prison. 

Mr. Davis appealed. He states that his conviction was affirmed by the California Court of

Appeal and that his petition for review is pending in the California Supreme Court. However, the

California courts’ website for appellate case information, www.appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov,

indicates that Mr. Davis’ petition for review was denied on July 30, 2014. That same website

indicates that he has a petition for writ of habeas corpus pending in the California Supreme Court: 

Mr. Davis’ petition for writ of habeas corpus was filed in the California Supreme Court on July 6,

2015 and was still pending as of September 20, 2015. 

ANALYSIS

I. REVIEW OF PETITION

This court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus "in behalf of a person in custody

pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the

Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Rose v. Hodges, 423

U.S. 19, 21 (1975). A district court shall "award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent

to show cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the

applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto." 28 U.S.C. § 2243. 

In his federal petition, Mr. Davis asserts the following claims. First, he alleges that his Sixth and

Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process and to present a defense were violated when “the trial

court failed to give accomplice instruction for Terrell Fisher . . . and then vouch[ed] that the

prosecutor was correct in arguing that the fact that no accomplice instruction was given reflected the

court’s belief that Fisher was not an accomplice.” (ECF No. 5 at 9.) Second, Mr. Davis alleges

that his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to effective assistance of counsel were denied

“when the trial court did not permit a continuance by counsel” when newly evidence was uncovered

three days before trial. (Id. at 10.) He further alleges that a continuance “should have been granted

Case 3:15-cv-03366-WHO Document 7 Filed 09/23/15 Page 2 of 5
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

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

15-cv-3366 LB

ORDER 3

to allow [him] to investigate late discovery” to give meaning to his rights to compulsory process and

to confront witnesses. Third, Mr. Davis alleges that his Sixth Amendment right to effective

assistance of counsel was violated “when defense counsel failed to make a request on the record to

admit the recording” of an interrogation of Terrell Fisher. (Id. at 11.) Fourth, Mr. Davis contends

that his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process was violated by the admission of officer Basa’s

“opinion testimony assessing the weight and credibility of the evidence.” (Id. at 12.) Fifth, Mr.

Davis alleges that the cumulative effect of these errors resulted in a due process violation. (Id. at

13.) Liberally construed, these claims are cognizable in a federal habeas proceeding and warrant a

response. 

II. THE MOTION FOR A STAY

Mr. Davis filed a motion for stay and abeyance until his state court remedies are exhausted. 

(ECF No. 1.) Mr. Davis did not describe the unexhausted claims and did not explain why he did not

exhaust state court remedies for those claims before filing his federal petition for writ of habeas

corpus.

 In Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005), the U.S. Supreme Court discussed the stay-andabeyance procedure for mixed habeas petitions. The Court cautioned district courts against being

too liberal in allowing a stay because a stay works against several of the purposes of the

Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA") in that it "frustrates AEDPA's

objective of encouraging finality by allowing a petitioner to delay the resolution of the federal

proceeding" and "undermines AEDPA's goal of streamlining federal habeas proceedings by

decreasing a petitioner's incentive to exhaust all his claims in state court prior to filing his federal

petition." Rhines, 544 U.S. at 277. A stay "is only appropriate when the district court determines

there was good cause for the petitioner's failure to exhaust his claims first in state court," the claims

are not meritless, and there are no intentionally dilatory litigation tactics by the petitioner. Id. at

277-78. Any stay must be limited in time to avoid indefinite delay. Id. Reasonable time limits

would be 30 days to get to state court, as long as necessary in state court, and 30 days to get back to

federal court after the final rejection of the claims by the state court. See id. at 278; Kelly v. Small,

315 F.3d 1063, 1071 (9th Cir. 2003), overruled on other grounds by Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d

Case 3:15-cv-03366-WHO Document 7 Filed 09/23/15 Page 3 of 5
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

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

There is a second kind of stay, called a King/Kelly stay, that provides an alternative method

to deal with a petitioner who has some unexhausted claims he wants to present in his federal habeas

action, but quite often results in a statute of limitations problem for the petitioner who uses it. Under

the procedure outlined in Kelly v. Small, "(1) a petitioner amends his petition to delete any

unexhausted claims; (2) the court stays and holds in abeyance the amended, fully exhausted petition,

allowing the petitioner the opportunity to proceed to state court to exhaust the deleted claims; and

(3) the petitioner later amends his petition and re-attaches the newly-exhausted claims to the original

petition.” King v. Ryan, 564 F.3d 1133, 1134 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Kelly, 315 F.3d at 1070-71). A

petitioner seeking to avail himself of the King/Kelly three-step procedure is not required to show

good cause as under Rhines, but rather must show that the amendment of any newly exhausted

claims back into the petition satisfies both Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644, 655 (2005), by sharing a

“common core of operative facts” with the claims in the original petition, and Duncan v. Walker,

533 U.S. 167 (2001), by complying with the statute of limitations. King, 564 F.3d at 1141-43. 

15-cv-3366 LB

ORDER 4

1143 (9th Cir. 2007).2

On the record now before the court, Mr. Davis does not qualify for a Rhines stay. The motion

for a stay does not identify the unexhausted claims, so the court cannot determine that they are not

meritless claims. The motion also does not show good cause for Mr. Davis’ failure to exhaust those

claims in state court before filing his federal petition for writ of habeas corpus. See Wooten v.

Kirkland, 540 F.3d 1019, 1024 (9th Cir. 2008) (upholding denial of stay because petitioner’s

incorrect “impression” that counsel had raised claims to the California Supreme Court on direct

appeal did not establish good cause under Rhines for failure to exhaust claims earlier). The motion

for a stay is DENIED without prejudice to Mr. Davis filing a new motion for a stay within twenty

days of the date of this order complying with the requirements under Rhines. The motion for a stay

should (a) identify all the unexhausted claims and (b) explain why those claims were not presented

to the California Supreme Court before this action was filed. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons,

1. The petition states cognizable claims for federal habeas relief and warrants a response. The

court will set a briefing schedule for respondent to show cause why the petition should not be

granted as to those claims. That briefing schedule will be adjusted if Mr. Davis files a new motion

for a stay. 

 2. The clerk shall serve by mail a copy of this order, the petition and all attachments thereto

Case 3:15-cv-03366-WHO Document 7 Filed 09/23/15 Page 4 of 5
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

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

15-cv-3366 LB

ORDER 5

upon respondent and respondent's attorney, the Attorney General of the State of California. The

clerk shall also serve a copy of this order on petitioner.

3. The clerk also shall serve a copy of the "consent or declination to magistrate judge

jurisdiction" form upon respondent and respondent's attorney, the Attorney General of the State of

California. 

4. Respondent must file and serve upon Petitioner, on or before December 18, 2015, an answer

conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, showing cause why

a writ of habeas corpus should not be issued. Respondent must file with the answer a copy of all

portions of the court proceedings that have been previously transcribed and that are relevant to a

determination of the issues presented by the petition. 

5. If Petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he must do so by filing a traverse with the

Court and serving it on Respondent on or before January 15, 2016. 

6. Petitioner's motion for a stay and abeyance is DENIED. (ECF No. 1.) If petitioner wants a

stay of this action so that he may exhaust state court remedies as to one or more claims, he must file

his motion for a stay within twenty days of the date of this order. Petitioner may choose instead to

simply dismiss the unexhausted claims and proceed with consideration of his other claims. 

7. Petitioner is responsible for prosecuting this case. Petitioner must promptly keep the Court

informed of any change of address and must comply with the Court's orders in a timely fashion.

8. Petitioner is cautioned that he must include the case name and case number for this case on

the first page of any document he submits to the Court for consideration in this case.

7. Petitioner's in forma pauperis application is GRANTED. (ECF No. 6.)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 23, 2015 _______________________________

LAUREL BEELER

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:15-cv-03366-WHO Document 7 Filed 09/23/15 Page 5 of 5