Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_00-cv-03311/USCOURTS-cand-4_00-cv-03311-0/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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VERNON,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

 LAMARQUE,

Defendant. /

No. C00-03311 MJJ

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S

MOTION TO FILE SECOND AMENDED

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS

CORPUS AND GRANTING

PETITIONER’S MOTION TO STAY 

INTRODUCTION

Before the Court are two motions: (1) Petitioner’s Motion To File a Second Amended

Petition For Writ Of Habeas Corpus; and (2) Petitioner’s Motion To Hold Proceedings In Abeyance

To Allow Exhaustion Of Additional Claims. (Docket No. 17.) For the following reasons, the Court

GRANTS both Motions. 

BACKGROUND

A. Procedural Background.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

(“Original Petition”) on September 12, 2000 that contained both exhausted and unexhausted claims. 

(Docket No. 1.) On October 30, 2000, the Court dismissed the Original Petition based on the habeas

exhaustion doctrine. See Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 503 (1982). (Docket No. 2.) The Court issued its

order without prejudice, allowing Petitioner to file a new petition after Petitioner’s post-conviction

proceedings concluded in state court. Id. On November 7, 2001, Petitioner filed a protective memo

requesting various rulings and orders aimed at avoiding the danger of accidental untimeliness in the

refiling of the petition following the litigation of the unexhausted claims in state court. (Docket No.

4.) On September 4, 2002, the Court denied the requests in the protective motion and ordered

Petitioner to show cause why the Court should grant Petitioner’s request to vacate the Court’s

Case 4:00-cv-03311-CW Document 18 Filed 03/04/08 Page 1 of 6
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

previous dismissal of the Original Petition. (Docket No. 6.) 

After two extensions of time, Petitioner filed a response to the Court’s Order To Show Cause

on November 4, 2002. The response included both an amended petition (“New Petition”) that

contained only exhausted claims and a request to allow the New Petition to be amended once other

claims were exhausted in state court. (Docket No. 11.) The Court did not respond to Petitioner’s

New Petition. 

On May 8, 2003, Petitioner filed a First Amended Petition (“First Amended Petition”), a

memorandum accompanying the First Amended Petition, and additional exhibits. (Docket No. 14,

15 & 16.) The Court did not respond to Petitioner’s First Amended Petition. On October 24, 2007,

Petitioner filed both an Application To Permit Filing Of Second Amended Petition And To Hold

Proceedings In Abeyance To Allow Exhaustion Of Additional Claims (“Motion”) and a Second

Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Second Amended Petition”). (Docket No. 17.) 

B. Factual Background.

Petitioner, a California prisoner incarcerated at Folsom State Prison, raises six claims in the

Second Amended Petition that have been exhausted in state court: (1) jurors committed misconduct

by failing to disclose material information during voir dire; (2) jurors committed misconduct by

contact and discussions with third parties; (3) prosecutorial misconduct occurred by contact and

discussions with jurors; (4) Petitioner’s rights were violated by the exclusion of the public, including

Petitioner’s parents, from voir dire; (5) Petitioner’s rights were violated when the trial court refused

to substitute other counsel for the second trial; and (6) the evidence was insufficient to convict

Petitioner of first-degree murder. 

Petitioner requests that the Court stay proceedings while the following four additional claims

are exhausted in state court: (1) Petitioner’s constitutional rights were violated by the court’s

imposition of the upper-term sentence on the gun use enhancement; (2) Petitioner’s constitutional

rights were violated because he was forced to wear a stun belt at trial; (3) the use of the stun belt and

other measures at trial constituted excessive courtroom security; and (4) if any claims are deemed

Case 4:00-cv-03311-CW Document 18 Filed 03/04/08 Page 2 of 6
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

 Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in the California Supreme Court on October 24, 2007 that

included these four unexhausted claims. 

3

waived, counsel provided ineffective assistance.1

LEGAL STANDARD

The 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); see also Rose v. Hodges,

423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15, made applicable to habeas proceedings by 28 U.S.C. §

2242, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 81(a)(2), and Habeas Corpus Rule 11, allows pleading

amendments with leave of court any time during a proceeding. Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644, 654-55

(2005) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)). Before a responsive pleading is served, pleadings may be

amended “once as a matter of course.” Id. at 655. Once a pleading is amended, however, “a party

may amend its pleading only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave.” Fed. R.

Civ. P. 15(a)(2).

The United States Supreme Court has held that a district court may stay mixed habeas

petitions to allow the petitioner to exhaust claims in state court. See Rhines v. Webber, 544 U.S.

269, 277-78 (2005); see also Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 416 (2005) (noting that prisoners

may file a “protective” petition in federal court and ask the federal court to stay federal habeas

proceedings until the state remedies are exhausted). A stay is only appropriate where the district

court has first determined that: (1) there was good cause for the petitioner’s failure to exhaust the

claims in state court; and (2) that the claims are potentially meritorious. Rhines, 544 U.S. at 277. 

ANALYSIS

I. Petitioner’s Exhausted Claims are Legally Cognizable and the First Amended Petition

is Properly Before the Court. 

Each of Petitioner’s six exhausted claims listed in the First Amended Petition raises at least

one constitutional violation. (Docket No. 14.) See Rose, 455 U.S. at 21. Accordingly, the Court

finds that Petitioner’s exhausted claims are cognizable when liberally construed. Therefore, the

Case 4:00-cv-03311-CW Document 18 Filed 03/04/08 Page 3 of 6
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 Cunningham holds that aggravating factors that might enhance a defendant’s upper-term sentence must be tried

before a jury, rather than a judge, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Cunningham, 127 S. Ct. at 863-64. Petitioner’s

counsel asserts that if Cunningham is applied to Petitioner’s case, Petitioner’s sentence will be reduced by six years. (Motion

at 5.) 

4

Court deems Petitioner’s First Amended Petition properly before the Court. 

II. Petitioner’s Second Amended Petition May be Filed and Proceedings are Stayed. 

Petitioner seeks to file a Second Amended Petition that includes four unexhausted claims and

also to stay proceedings pending the California Supreme Court’s decision on the Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus filed in that court on October 24, 2007. (Docket No. 17.) Petitioner has already

amended the petition once “as a matter of course” under Rule 15(a). Therefore, the Second

Amended Petition may only be filed “with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Because the Court has not yet issued an Order to Show Cause to the

opposing party, and there is neither a responsive pleading nor apparent prejudice to the opposing

party, the Court grants Plaintiff leave to file a Second Amended Petition. 

The Court next reviews each of Petitioner’s unexhausted claims to determine if a stay of the

Second Amended Petition is appropriate. Petitioner’s first unexhausted claim is that the imposition

of the upper-term sentence on the gun use enhancement violated Petitioner’s constitutional rights. 

Petitioner failed to raise this claim in his prior petitions because Cunningham v. California, 127 S.

Ct. 856 (2007), was not issued until after completion of the state proceedings.2

 Morever, because

Petitioner’s conviction become final on September 14, 1999 and Cunningham may be retroactively

applied to March 24, 1999, Petitioner’s Sixth Amendment claim under Cunningham has potential

merit. See id. at 864. Therefore, Petitioner has shown both good cause for his failure to raise the

claim earlier in state court and that the claim has potential merit under Rhines. See Rhines, 544 U.S.

at 277. 

Petitioner’s second unexhausted claim is that Petitioner’s constitutional rights were violated

when he was forced to wear a stun belt at trial. Petitioner and his counsel only recently became

aware of this claim. Because this claim was not raised during Petitioner’s direct appeal and

Petitioner’s current counsel is different, the Court finds that Petitioner has good cause to raise this

claim now. In addition, the claim is potentially meritorious as a constitutional violation. See

Case 4:00-cv-03311-CW Document 18 Filed 03/04/08 Page 4 of 6
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 3

 Although Petitioner did not include this claim in the Motion, it was raised in the Second Amended Petition, and

the Court will address it under the Rhines test. 

5

Gonzalez v. Pliler, 341 F.3d 897, 900-01 (9th Cir. 2003) (stating that a court’s decision to use a stun

belt during trial may violate a defendant’s constitutional rights absent a “compelling reason,” such as

courtroom security). Therefore, the Rhines standard is met. See Rhines, 544 U.S. at 277. 

Petitioner’s third unexhausted claim is that the use of the stun belt and other measures at trial

constituted excessive courtroom security. For the same reasons noted above regarding Petitioner’s

claim that he was forced to wear a stun belt at trial, the Court finds that Petitioner has shown good

cause and the claim is potentially meritorious. Id. 

Petitioner’s fourth unexhausted claim is that if any claims are deemed waived, Petitioner

seeks to show that his previous counsel on direct appeal provided ineffective counsel.3

 Petitioner’s

counsel on direct appeal was Kyle Gee. (Docket No. 4.) Mr. Gee did not raise the gun enhancement

and stun belt claims. Petitioner’s current counsel, Mark R. Vermeulen, did not represent Petitioner

on direct appeal. As a result, Petitioner has shown good cause. In addition, the claim is potentially

meritorious and the Rhines standard is met. Id. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s Motion to File Second Amended

Petition, and GRANTS Petitioner’s Motion to Stay. 

Petitioner is cautioned that if he wishes to have this Court consider the unexhausted claims,

he must properly present his petition to the California Supreme Court within 30 days of the date of

any decision by the California Court of Appeal rejecting his claims. Further, if Petitioner wishes to

have this Court consider his petition, including the exhausted claims set forth therein, he must file a

motion to reopen this action within 30 days of the California Supreme Court’s decision rejecting his

claims. In the event that any of the new claims Petitioner is exhausting are granted in the California

courts, Petitioner shall so notify the Court in a motion to reopen this action, filed in this Court within

30 days of the state court decision. 

//

//

Case 4:00-cv-03311-CW Document 18 Filed 03/04/08 Page 5 of 6
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

6

The Clerk shall ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE this file pending the stay of this action. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 3, 2008 

MARTIN J. JENKINS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:00-cv-03311-CW Document 18 Filed 03/04/08 Page 6 of 6