Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00276/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00276-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2255 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)

---

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

LUIS CALDERON,

Petitioner,

v.

FREDERIC FOULKS,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:16-cv-00276-SAB-HC

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Petitioner is a state prisoner, represented by counsel, proceeding with a petition for writ 

of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

I.

BACKGROUND

Petitioner challenges his convictions sustained in the Tulare County Superior Court for 

sex offenses committed against minors. Petitioner was sentenced to a determinate imprisonment 

term of forty-six years. (ECF No. 1 at 2).1The California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate 

District, affirmed the convictions on December 19, 2014. The California Supreme Court denied 

the petition for review on March 2, 2015. (Id. at 3).

On February 27, 2016, Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus. 

Petitioner raises the following claims in his federal habeas petition: (1) prosecutorial misconduct, 

 

1

Page numbers refer to the ECF page numbers stamped at the top of the page.

Case 1:16-cv-00276-LJO-SAB Document 4 Filed 03/22/16 Page 1 of 4
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

(2) ineffective assistance of trial counsel, (3) trial counsel’s conflict of interest, and (4) judicial 

misconduct. (ECF No. 1 at 5–6, 18–19).

II.

DISCUSSION

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases requires preliminary review of a 

habeas petition and allows a district court to dismiss a petition before the respondent is ordered 

to file a response, if it “plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the 

petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.”

A petitioner in state custody who is proceeding with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 

must exhaust state judicial remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). The exhaustion doctrine is based 

on comity to the state court and gives the state court the initial opportunity to correct the state’s 

alleged constitutional deprivations. Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 731 (1991); Rose v. 

Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 518 (1982). A petitioner can satisfy the exhaustion requirement by 

providing the highest state court with a full and fair opportunity to consider each claim before 

presenting it to the federal court. O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999); Duncan v. 

Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365 (1995); Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276 (1971). 

If Petitioner has not sought relief in the California Supreme Court for the claims that he 

raises in the instant petition, the Court cannot proceed to the merits of those claims. 28 U.S.C. § 

2254(b)(1). The Court must dismiss a mixed petition without prejudice to give a petitioner an 

opportunity to exhaust the claims if he can do so. See Lundy, 455 U.S. at 522. However, a 

petitioner may, at his option, withdraw the unexhausted claims and go forward with the 

exhausted claims. Anthony v. Cambra, 236 F.3d 568, 574 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[D]istrict courts must 

provide habeas litigants with the opportunity to amend their mixed petitions by striking 

unexhausted claims as an alternative to suffering dismissal.”). A petitioner may also move to 

withdraw the entire petition and return to federal court when he has finally exhausted his state 

court remedies.2

 

2 Although the limitations period tolls while a properly filed request for collateral review is pending in state court, 

28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2), it does not toll for the time a federal habeas petition is pending in federal court. Duncan v. 

Walker, 533 U.S. 167, 181–82 (2001). 

Case 1:16-cv-00276-LJO-SAB Document 4 Filed 03/22/16 Page 2 of 4
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

Petitioner acknowledges that he raises some claims that are unexhausted, and therefore 

requests the Court to hold the instant petition in abeyance pending resolution of the unexhausted 

claims in state court. (ECF No. 1 at 4). There are two procedures for staying federal habeas 

petitions so that petitioners may exhaust claims in state court. See Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 

269, 277 (2005); Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063, 1070–71 (9th Cir. 2002). Under Rhines v. 

Weber, “stay and abeyance” is available only in limited circumstances, and only when: (1) there 

is “good cause” for the failure to exhaust; (2) the unexhausted claims are not “plainly meritless”; 

and (3) the petitioner did not intentionally engage in dilatory litigation tactics. 544 U.S. at 277–

78. Under Kelly v. Small, a three-step procedure is used: (1) the petitioner amends his petition to 

delete any unexhausted claims; (2) the court in its discretion stays the amended, fully exhausted 

petition, and holds it in abeyance while the petitioner has the opportunity to proceed to state 

court to exhaust the deleted claims; and (3) once the claims have been exhausted in state court, 

the petitioner may return to federal court and amend his federal petition to include the newlyexhausted claims. 315 F.3d at 1070–71 (citing Calderon v. United States Dist. Court (Taylor), 

134 F.3d 981, 986 (9th Cir. 1998)).

In the instant petition, Petitioner acknowledges that he raises some claims that are 

unexhausted. Petitioner also requests the Court to hold the instant petition in abeyance pending 

resolution of the unexhausted claims in state court. Although it appears that Petitioner seeks a 

stay pursuant to Rhines, Petitioner has failed to cite to any authority or to set forth any arguments 

and allegations in support of the stay.

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 1:16-cv-00276-LJO-SAB Document 4 Filed 03/22/16 Page 3 of 4
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

4

III.

ORDER

Accordingly, Petitioner is HEREBY ORDERED to SHOW CAUSE within FOURTEEN 

(14) DAYS of the date of service of this order why the petition should not be dismissed for 

failure to exhaust state court remedies.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 21, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00276-LJO-SAB Document 4 Filed 03/22/16 Page 4 of 4