Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01101/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01101-4/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES EDWARD WILLIAMS,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-07-1101 LEW GGH P

vs.

MIKE EVANS, et al., 

Respondents. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed a

petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner was sentenced to a

15-year term in state prison upon his conviction for robbery, with an enhancement based on the

allegation that he personally used a firearm during the commission of the robbery having been

found true. Petition, pp. 1, 14; Answer, p. 1. In his original petition, petitioner sets forth one

ground: that the imposition of the upper term based on a prior prison term and on factual

determinations that went beyond the bare facts of a prior conviction violated his constitutional

rights, citing, inter alia, Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004). Pending

before the court is petitioner’s motion for a stay and abeyance of his federal petition while he

exhausts additional grounds in state court, which respondent has opposed in the answer.

\\\\\

Case 2:07-cv-01101-LEW-GGH Document 19 Filed 01/16/08 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

 A petition may be denied on the merits without exhaustion of state court remedies. 28 1

U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2). 

The exhaustion of state court remedies is a prerequisite to the granting of a

petition for writ of habeas corpus. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). If exhaustion is to be waived, it must

be waived explicitly by respondent’s counsel. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(3). A waiver of exhaustion, 1

thus, may not be implied or inferred. A petitioner satisfies the exhaustion requirement by

providing the highest state court with a full and fair opportunity to consider all claims before

presenting them to the federal court. Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276 (1971); Middleton v.

Cupp, 768 F.2d 1083, 1086 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 478 U.S. 1021 (1986). 

Petitioner identifies as unexhausted the following claims: 1) ineffective assistance

of counsel; 2) perjured/impeachable testimony of state witness; 3) suppression of evidence; 4)

ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. Motion, p. 1. In Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 125

S. Ct. 1528 (2005), the United States Supreme Court found that a stay and abeyance of a mixed

federal petition should be available only in the limited circumstance that good cause is shown for

a failure to have first exhausted the claims in state court, that the claim or claims at issue

potentially have merit and that there has been no indication that petitioner has been intentionally

dilatory in pursuing the litigation. Rhines, supra, at 277-78, 125 S. Ct. at 1535. 

However, the court need not evaluate petitioner’s expressly unexhausted claims in

this case because it appears that the claim in petitioner’s original petition is unexhausted, despite

petitioner’s having proceeded through the state supreme court with the claim. Although

respondent concedes that the sole claim of the original federal petition was raised in a petition for

review and rejected in the California Supreme Court, respondent challenges petitioner’s Blakely

claim on the ground, inter alia, of nonexhaustion, based on the recent decision in Cunningham v.

California, __ U.S. ___, 127 S. Ct. 856 (2007), which would cast the claim “in a significantly

different light,” Answer, pp. 17, 24. Respondent is correct that the state supreme court, in

denying the petition for review, did so without prejudice. Explicitly, the California State

Supreme Court stated:

Case 2:07-cv-01101-LEW-GGH Document 19 Filed 01/16/08 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

Petition for review denied without prejudice to any relief to which

defendant might be entitled after the United States Supreme Court

determines in Cunningham v. California,....the effect of Blakely v.

Washington.... and United States v. Booker (2005) 543 U.S. 20, on

California law.

Traverse, p. 47.

That places this case in a fairly unique posture: one wherein, based on a then asyet-to-be-decided U.S. Supreme Court case, petitioner, while his petition for review is denied, is

nevertheless invited to return to seek remedy in the state’s highest court, assuming a future

determination favorable to petitioner’s position. Because Cunningham, supra,127 S. Ct. at 860,

has subsequently been decided, holding that California’s determinate sentencing law violates a

defendant’s jury trial right under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments “by placing sentenceelevating factfinding within the judge’s province,” petitioner’s sentencing claim in this court,

filed on June 8, 2007, some six months after the January 22, 2007, Cunningham decision, has

been rendered unexhausted. Petitioner, a pro se litigant, does not appear on the face of it to have

lacked diligence in his efforts to exhaust his state court remedies for his sentencing claim and,

therefore, once he has exhausted this claim by putting it before the state supreme court in light of

Cunningham, should he then need to return to federal court, he would appear to be a likely

candidate for consideration of equitable tolling of the AEDPA statute of limitations. 

The fact that the sole claim that petitioner was originally proceeding upon remains

unexhausted does not permit the court to recommend a stay of this matter, as all claims are

unexhausted. Rasperry v. Garcia, 448 F.3d 1150, 1154 (9 Cir. 2006) citing Jiminez v. Rice, 276 th

F.3d 478, 481 (9 Cir. 2001). Petitioner should return to state court forthwith to exhaust all th

claims. Once petitioner receives a decision from the state supreme court, he may again seek to

proceed on a petition setting forth all of his exhausted claims. 

Accordingly, IT IS RECOMMENDED that petitioner’s June 27, 2007, motion for

a stay and abeyance of his petition be denied and the petition be dismissed as unexhausted.

\\\\\

Case 2:07-cv-01101-LEW-GGH Document 19 Filed 01/16/08 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

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are advised

that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District

Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: 01/16/08

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009

will1101.fr

Case 2:07-cv-01101-LEW-GGH Document 19 Filed 01/16/08 Page 4 of 4