Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00085/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00085-1/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

ALEX ANTHONY RUBIO,

Petitioner,

v.

ROSEMARY NDOH,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:20-cv-00085-NONE-JDP

INFORMATIONAL ORDER IN RESPONSE 

TO PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR 

CLARIFICATION

ECF No. 5

RESPONSE DUE IN THIRTY DAYS

Alex Anthony Rubio, a state prisoner without counsel, petitioned for a writ of habeas 

corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. ECF No. 1. Petitioner raised two claims of trial court error and 

provided evidence confirming that his claims were exhausted at the state level, as required by 

§ 2254(b). See id. at 49-75. Petitioner then moved, in a separate motion, for a stay and abeyance 

of his petition, stating that he wanted to exhaust state-level remedies for an additional claim of 

ineffective assistance of counsel. ECF No. 2. We issued findings and recommendations to grant 

petitioner’s motion to stay and hold the petition in abeyance. ECF No. 4. Petitioner responded 

with a request for clarification. ECF No. 5.

Discussion

In his request for clarification, petitioner states that he does not understand the procedural 

process of a Kelly stay, the relevant type of stay in petitioner’s case. See ECF No. 5 at 2; Kelly v. 

Case 1:20-cv-00085-JLT-HBK Document 6 Filed 03/23/20 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

Small, 315 F.3d 1063, 1070-71 (9th Cir. 2002). Thus, we provide petitioner with the following 

explanation of the Kelly stay procedure. 

Under Kelly, a case moves through three stages: first, the petitioner amends his petition to 

delete any unexhausted claims; second, the court, in its discretion, stays the amended, fullyexhausted petition, and holds it in abeyance while the petitioner has the opportunity to proceed to 

state court to exhaust the deleted claims; and third, once the deleted claims have been exhausted 

in state court, the petitioner may return to federal court and amend his federal petition, adding the 

newly-exhausted claims. See Kelly, 315 F.3d at 1070-71 (citing Calderon v. U.S. Dist. Court 

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

Here, petitioner has filed a petition with two fully exhausted claims and seeks a stay and 

abeyance of his petition to exhaust a third claim, ineffective assistance of counsel, at the state 

level. We recommended that petitioner’s request for a stay be granted. ECF No. 4 at 4. Once 

petitioner’s new claim is exhausted at the state level, he may then be able to proceed to step three 

of Kelly by amending his federal petition to include the additional claim. However, under Kelly, 

he will only be able to amend his petition with his newly-exhausted claim if that claim is 

“timely.” See King v. Ryan, 564 F.3d 1133, 1140-41 (9th Cir. 2009). Under Kelly, his amended 

petition will be timely if either (1) the amended petition is filed within AEDPA’s statute of 

limitations, see 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d), or (2) the new claim “relates back” to his claims in his initial 

petition. See King, 564 F.3d at 1143; Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644, 664 (2005). Petitioner states 

that he does not understand the timeliness requirements of Kelly. 

Here, petitioner was sentenced for his state criminal conviction on February 4, 2016. ECF 

No. 1 at 1. Petitioner then sought direct appellate and state supreme court review of his 

conviction. The state supreme court denied review on February 20, 2019. Id. at 49. Petitioner 

then filed his original petition nearly a year later, on January 16, 2020. Id. at 1. Absent rare 

circumstances, a federal habeas petition must be filed within one year of “the date on which the 

judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking 

such review.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A). For AEDPA purposes, “direct review” includes the 

ninety-day period in which the petitioner may petition for a writ of certiorari from the United 

Case 1:20-cv-00085-JLT-HBK Document 6 Filed 03/23/20 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

States Supreme Court. See Bowen v. Roe, 188 F.3d 1157, 1158–59 (9th Cir. 1999). Therefore, 

petitioner had until May 21, 2020 to file his federal claim and his original petition appears 

timely.1 However, the filing of a federal habeas claim does not toll AEDPA’s statute of 

limitations. See Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167, 181 (2001). For his amended petition to meet 

AEDPA’s one-year statute of limitations, petitioner must both exhaust his state-level claim of 

ineffective assistance of counsel and file his amended federal petition by May 21, 2020, which is

likely impossible. 

However, if petitioner can demonstrate that his new claim, ineffective assistance of 

counsel, “relates back” to his claims in his original petition, the amended petition will be 

considered timely. A claim that simply arises from “the same trial, conviction, or sentence” does 

not necessarily relate back to the initial claims. See Mayle, 545 at U.S. 659. To “relate back,” the 

new claim must share a “common core of operative facts” with the claims in the pending petition. 

Id. Here, because petitioner’s initial claims attack the trial court’s actions and his new claim 

attacks his attorney’s actions, petitioner may have difficulty showing that these claims share a 

common core of operative facts. For that reason, we will require petitioner to notify this court of 

his intention to proceed under Kelly before we stay his petition under Kelly. Alternatively, 

petitioner may alert this court that he wishes to proceed with his original petition only and forego 

asserting his ineffective assistance of counsel claim.

Order

Petitioner is ordered to notify this court within 30 days of the service of this order whether 

he wishes to proceed with a stay under the Kelly procedure. If petitioner does not wish to stay his 

petition under Kelly, the original petition may proceed. ECF No. 1. The deadline to file 

objections to our findings and recommendations, ECF No. 4, is extended accordingly.

 

1 We arrive at May 21, 2020 as petitioner’s federal filing deadline by adding one year and 90 days 

to the date of the state supreme court’s denial of review.

Case 1:20-cv-00085-JLT-HBK Document 6 Filed 03/23/20 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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 20, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

No. 206.

Case 1:20-cv-00085-JLT-HBK Document 6 Filed 03/23/20 Page 4 of 4