Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_11-cv-06410/USCOURTS-cand-3_11-cv-06410-12/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)

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICKY A. HAND,

Petitioner,

v.

GARY SWARTHOUT,

Respondent.

Case No. 11-cv-06410-WHO (PR)

ORDER STAYING ACTION

INTRODUCTION

This order addresses whether petitioner Ricky Hand has exhausted a habeas claim 

in the state courts. In his request to dissolve the stay, he asserted he had exhausted, but the 

record was unclear. The Court dissolved the stay and asked for briefing. On the basis of 

this briefing, the Court concludes that Hand has not exhausted his claim despite his two 

attempts to do so. Accordingly, the Court reinstitutes the stay and instructs Hand to 

exhaust his judicial remedies. The Conclusion section of this Order provides some 

suggestions on filing the petition.

BACKGROUND

This habeas action was stayed in 2014 so that Hand could exhaust a claim by 

presenting it to the state supreme court. After that, Hand filed a petition in the state 

supreme court. He titled it “Petition for Review to Exhausted State Remedies Pursuant to 

Case 3:11-cv-06410-WHO Document 53 Filed 09/13/16 Page 1 of 3
2

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

Northern District of California

Rule 8.508(b)(3)(A)” but noted that he also sought review of the state appellate court’s 

decision. The state supreme court read the petition as one for appellate review. It 

consequently rejected the filing because the petition’s untimeliness deprived the court of 

jurisdiction to review the appellate court’s decision. The court directed Hand to file a 

petition for writ of habeas corpus and sent him a petition form. Hand completed the form 

and submitted it to the court, which rejected it because it was unsigned. Hand signed the 

petition and resubmitted it. The court again construed the petition as one for direct review, 

and rejected it again on grounds that the court lacked jurisdiction. In both petitions, Hand 

repeatedly referred to the state appellate court decision and indicated that he sought review 

of it. 

Hand asserts that his attempts satisfied the exhaustion requirement. Respondent 

disagrees.

DISCUSSION

Hand contends that he has exhausted his claim, or, in the alternative, that the 

exhaustion requirement should be excused because the state court has refused to entertain 

his petitions. Respondent contends that the petitions were properly rejected and that Hand 

has not exhausted his claim.

To exhaust properly, a claim must be “fairly presented” to the state supreme court. 

“Fairly presented” means that a petitioner complied with the state’s appellate rules and 

used a permissible method of raising an issue in the state supreme court. Kibler v. Walters, 

220 F.3d 1151, 1153 (9th Cir. 2000). Also, exhaustion is not complete until the court in 

which the petition is filed issues a decision on such petition. Lawrence v. Florida, 549 

U.S. 327, 332 (2007).

The record supports respondent’s contention. Despite Hand’s titling his petitions as 

attempts to exhaust his claim for purposes of pursuing federal habeas, the body of the 

petitions appeared to the state supreme court that he sought review of the state appellate 

court decision. The state supreme court read the petitions as petitions for review, and, in 

accordance with its rules, rejected them as untimely. Hand therefore did not comply with 

Case 3:11-cv-06410-WHO Document 53 Filed 09/13/16 Page 2 of 3
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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

the state’s appellate rules, nor did he use a permissible method of raising his claim. His 

claim therefore remains unexhausted and I am unable to consider it.

CONCLUSION

This federal habeas action is STAYED under Rhines v. Webber, 544 U.S. 269 

(2005). Nothing further will take place in this action until the Court decides further action 

is appropriate, or until Hand exhausts the unexhausted claim and, within thirty days of 

doing so, moves both to reopen this action and to lift the stay. 

Hand must exhaust his claims before I can evaluate the merits of his petition. As 

respondent suggests, Hand can exhaust by filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the 

state supreme court. The following suggestions may be of value: Hand should take care to 

ask only for review of his claim for purposes of federal exhaustion, and not to confuse 

matters by also asking the court to review the state appellate decision. To do this, Hand 

should use the state court’s form for petition of writ of habeas corpus (not a form for a 

petition for review) and omit any mention of the state appellate court opinion on the cover 

page. In fact, he should mention the state appellate opinion only when the form asks him 

to. I cannot promise success if Hand follows these instructions, but perhaps following 

them will improve his chances of satisfying the exhaustion requirement. . 

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

action. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 13, 2016

_________________________

WILLIAM H. ORRICK

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-06410-WHO Document 53 Filed 09/13/16 Page 3 of 3