Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_99-cv-02416/USCOURTS-caed-2_99-cv-02416-1/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 1

 Mr. Stokes is substituted for his predecessor, Jill Brown, as acting

Warden of San Quentin State Prison, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 25(d).

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

Lee Max Barnett,

Petitioner, No. Civ. S 99-2416 DFL PAN P

vs. Order

John Stokes, Acting Warden Death Penalty Case

of San Quentin State Prison1,

Respondent.

-oOoFebruary 2, 2001, the court granted equitable tolling of the

federal limitation period until August 9, 2001. 

Petitioner filed a petition for habeas corpus in the

California Supreme Court April 5, 2001, case number S096831. 

April 9, 2001, petitioner filed his initial petition herein,

containing exhausted claims and claims presented in S096831. The

Case 2:99-cv-02416-DJC-DMC Document 163 Filed 09/06/05 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

2

court required petitioner to amend his pleading to omit

unexhausted claims and he then filed his first amended petition

including only exhausted claims on August 9, 2002. Proceedings

on the petition were stayed pursuant to the district judge’s

order issued March 26, 2002.

A second state habeas petition, case number S120570, was

filed in 2003.

August 4, 2003, the court ordered petitioner to file a

second-amended petition within three days after the California

Supreme Court “decision or decisions” become final. 

July 27, 2005, the California Supreme Court denied petition

S096831. Petition S120570 remains pending. 

March 30, 2005, the United States Supreme Court held in

Rhines v. Weber, U.S. , 125 S.Ct. 1528 (2005), that

abeyance undermines the habeas statutes’ purpose of reducing

delays in the execution of sentences in capital cases. 

Therefore, the Court held, abeyance is appropriate only if (1)

there is good cause for petitioner’s failure previously to

exhaust claims in state court, and (2) unexhausted claims are not

“plainly meritless.” Further, on June 23, 2005, the United

States Supreme Court held in Mayle v. Felix, U.S. , 125

S.Ct. 2562 (2005), that an amended habeas petition did not

“relate back” and thus defeat the limitation period unless the

new claims arose out of the “conduct, transaction or occurrence”

set forth in the original pleading. Read together these

decisions stand for the principle that the federal statute of

Case 2:99-cv-02416-DJC-DMC Document 163 Filed 09/06/05 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

3

limitation in habeas cases is meaningful and cannot be subverted

through lenient practice permitting abeyance, exhaustion and

amendment.

July 29, 2005, petitioner moved for leave to file a second

amended petition which includes claims the California Supreme

Court denied in case number S096831. 

Rule 15(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that

“leave [to amend a pleading] shall be freely given when justice

so requires.” Although this rule proscribes a liberal policy of

amendment (see Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)),

amendment is not permitted when it would be futile (see Allen v.

City of Beverly Hills, 911 F.2d 367, 373-74 (9th Cir. 1990)),

e.g., when claims made for the first time in an amended pleading

are time-barred.

Good cause appearing, the court hereby orders that:

1. Petitioner’s July 29, 2005, motion for leave to amend is

denied for petitioner’s failure to address why amendment would

not be futile.

2. Petitioner shall show cause, within 20 days, why the

court should not proceed on the existing pleading and find that

claims that were not exhausted by April 9, 2001, are time-barred. 

3. Respondent shall respond to petitioner’s showing within

20 days thereafter; and petitioner may reply within 10 days 

///

///

///

Case 2:99-cv-02416-DJC-DMC Document 163 Filed 09/06/05 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

4

thereafter. The court will schedule a hearing on abeyance,

amendment and limitation issues by further order.

Dated: September 6, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:99-cv-02416-DJC-DMC Document 163 Filed 09/06/05 Page 4 of 4