Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00845/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00845-3/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 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MIGUEL WHITE, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

F. FOULK, Warden, 

Respondent. 

No. 14-cv-0845 TLN AC (TEMP) 

ORDER AND 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for a writ of habeas corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On September 9, 2011, petitioner was convicted in the Sacramento 

County Superior Court of three counts of second degree robbery with use of a firearm and one 

count of attempted carjacking, with jury findings that he personally used a firearm and 

intentionally discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury. Petitioner filed an appeal of his 

conviction in the California Court of Appeal, raising the following three claims for relief: (1) jury 

instruction error violated his right to due process; (2) the evidence was insufficient to support the 

jury finding that he intentionally discharged a firearm; and (3) his trial counsel rendered 

ineffective assistance in failing to request a “pinpoint” jury instruction on the defense of accident. 

The California Court of Appeal addressed each of these claims on the merits and affirmed 

petitioner’s judgment of conviction. Petitioner subsequently filed a petition for review in the 

California Supreme Court in which he raised only his first claim for relief: that jury instruction 

Case 2:14-cv-00845-TLN-AC Document 28 Filed 06/22/16 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

error violated his right to due process. That petition was summarily denied. 

 Petitioner subsequently filed a habeas petition in this court, in which he raised the same 

three claims for relief that he raised on direct appeal before the California Court of Appeal. In his 

answer, respondent argued that petitioner’s second and third claims were unexhausted because 

they were not contained in his state petition for review, and should therefore be dismissed. On 

February 9, 2016, this court issued findings and recommendations which recommended that 

petitioner’s application for habeas corpus be denied. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254(b)(2), the court 

addressed and denied petitioner’s second and third claims on the merits, notwithstanding 

petitioner’s failure to exhaust those claims in state court. 

 Now before the court is petitioner’s “motion for stay and abeyance.” Petitioner requests 

that the court stay this action while he presents his two unexhausted claims to the California 

Supreme Court. (ECF No. 23 at 1-2.) He states that once he exhausts his state remedies with 

respect to these claims, he will “move this court to amend my petition to include the newly 

exhausted issues so they can be determined based on their merits.” (Id.) Respondent filed an 

opposition to petitioner’s motion for stay and abeyance on May 25, 2016. (ECF No. 25.) 

 A court may stay a petition and hold it in abeyance pursuant to either Kelly v. Small, 315 

F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2003) or Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (1995). King v. Ryan, 564 F.3d 

1133, 1135 (9th Cir. 2009). The procedure varies depending on whether the petition presents 

fully exhausted claims, or a mix of exhausted and unexhausted claims. Under Kelly, the 

petitioner amends his petition to delete any unexhausted claims, and the court then stays and 

holds in abeyance the amended, fully exhausted petition, allowing the petitioner the opportunity 

to proceed to state court to exhaust the deleted claims. Id. (citing Kelly, 315 F.3d at 1070-71.) 

Later, the petitioner amends his petition to add the newly-exhausted claims to the original 

petition. Id. Under Rhines, a court may stay a mixed petition, i.e., one containing exhausted and 

unexhausted claims, to allow a petitioner to present unexhausted claims to the state courts. 

Rhines, 544 U.S. at 277. Under Rhines, “‘stay-and-abeyance is only appropriate when the district 

court determines there was good cause for the petitioner’s failure to exhaust his claims first in 

state court.’” King, 564 F.3d at 1139 (quoting Rhines, 544 U.S. at 277-78). The Kelly procedure, 

Case 2:14-cv-00845-TLN-AC Document 28 Filed 06/22/16 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

which remains available after Rhines, does not require a showing of good cause. King, 564 F.3d 

at 1140. 

 Both Kelly and Rhines “are directed at solving the same problem – namely, the interplay 

between AEDPA's one-year statute of limitations and the total exhaustion requirement first 

articulated in Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (1982).” King, 564 F.3d at 1136. The Rhines 

procedure “eliminates entirely any limitations issue with regard to the originally unexhausted 

claims, as the claims remain pending in federal court throughout.” Id. at 1140. On the other 

hand, “[a] petitioner seeking to use the Kelly procedure will be able to amend his unexhausted 

claims back into his federal petition once he has exhausted them only if those claims are 

determined to be timely.” Id. at 1140-41. Because the Kelly procedure requires petitioners to 

dismiss their unexhausted claims and then attempt to add them back into the federal petition later, 

the Kelly procedure does not protect a petitioner's unexhausted claims from untimeliness. 

 As explained above, this court has already addressed petitioner’s two unexhausted claims 

on the merits. Under these circumstances, there is no good cause to stay this action in order to 

allow petitioner to present those claims to the California Supreme Court. Petitioner’s intention to 

file a motion to amend his petition “to include the newly exhausted issues so they can be 

determined based on their merits” is unnecessary because those claims were raised in petitioner’s 

federal habeas petition and were resolved on their merits in the February 9, 2016 findings and 

recommendations. 

 With regard to the merits of his motion, petitioner is asking this court to stay his mixed 

petition so that he may return to state court and exhaust the two claims that are unexhausted. His 

request in this regard is more akin to the Rhines procedure, which applies to stays of mixed 

petitions, than to the Kelly procedure, which applies to stays of fully exhausted petitions. 

Because petitioner has failed to demonstrate good cause for his failure to exhaust his claims first 

in state court, or even to explain why he failed to do so, he is not entitled to a stay of this action 

under Rhines. Petitioner does not explain why he did not allege all of his claims in his petition 

for review or why he was unable to exhaust his claims in state court before filing his habeas 

///// 

Case 2:14-cv-00845-TLN-AC Document 28 Filed 06/22/16 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

petition in federal court. For these reasons, this court recommends that petitioner’s motion for 

stay and abeyance be denied. 

 Petitioner has also filed two motions for an extension of time. (ECF Nos. 24, 27.) The 

court will construe these motions as a request for extension of time to file objections to the 

February 9, 2016 findings and recommendations. Good cause appearing, those requests will be 

granted. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s motions for extension of time 

(ECF Nos. 24, 27) are granted. Petitioner may file his objections to the February 9, 2016 findings 

and recommendations within thirty days from the date of this order. 

 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that petitioner’s motion for stay and abeyance be 

denied. 

 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 fourteen 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 fourteen days after service of the objections. Failure to file 

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 

Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 

1991). In his objections petitioner may address whether a certificate of appealability should issue 

in the event he files an appeal of the judgment in this case. See Rule 11, Federal Rules Governing 

Section 2254 Cases (the district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it 

enters a final order adverse to the applicant). 

DATED: June 22, 2016 

Case 2:14-cv-00845-TLN-AC Document 28 Filed 06/22/16 Page 4 of 4