Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00705/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00705-6/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GLENN CORNWELL, JR.,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-06-0705 DFL GGH P

vs.

ROBERT L. AYERS, JR., DEATH PENALTY CASE

Warden of the California State Prison

at San Quentin,

Respondent. ORDER & FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

As suggested in Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 416, 125 S. Ct. 1807 (2005),

petitioner filed a “protective petition” in order to forestall a statute of limitations problem in the

event the state supreme court might find his pending state habeas filing untimely. In such an

event, the state petition would not be considered properly filed for statute of limitations tolling

purposes. Id. The filing of the federal petition stops the running of the AEDPA limitations

statute wherever that clock happens to be. Petitioner has requested that the protective petition be

stayed pursuant to Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 125 S. Ct. 1528 (2005), which held that a

mixed federal petition may be stayed while unexhausted claims are exhausted, if the new,

unexhausted claims are potentially meritorious (not plainly meritless), good cause exists for their

belated presentation, and there is no indication that petitioner engaged in dilatory litigation

Case 2:06-cv-00705-TLN-CSK Document 22 Filed 03/26/07 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

tactics. See also Jackson v. Roe, 425 F.3d 654, 661-662 (9th Cir. 2005).

Up to this point, the issue is fairly straight forward, but factual complexities to be

described rob the issue of simplicity. Petitioner, through his state appointed attorney, has raised

new claims in his pending state habeas, i.e., claims not raised on direct review, but petitioner’s

federal counsel has discovered additional new claims which will eventually have to be

exhausted. Pace does not speak directly to a situation where petitioner is proceeding in state and

federal court with different counsel. Respondent is reasonably concerned that if this present

mixed federal petition is stayed, the court will have set up the prospect of a double exhaustion

scenario. That is, we will wait for the present state petition to be exhausted, then the additional,

new federally stated claims will only then be sent over to the state courts for a second round of

exhaustion. Such dual state exhaustion proceedings are inefficient at best, and offend comity at

worst. The undersigned doubts very much that the state supreme court welcomes successive

petitions.

Thus, it seems clear that petitioner should be tasked with immediately

supplementing his state habeas petition with his latest claims, or at least attempting to do so, in

order that the state supreme court can adjudicate the habeas claims once and finally. The

undersigned finds that the potential efficiencies constitute good cause for staying the federal

petition, and that there is no indication in the present record that petitioner is attempting to game

the system in order to create delay. The new claims have been discovered by newly appointed

federal counsel at the inception of the case. Petitioner will assert that this is the reason we

appoint federal counsel – to take a thorough look into the record and extra-record facts to

ascertain any reasonable claims which may have been missed. At this inception of the federal

habeas case, the Ninth Circuit would look with disfavor on any harsh application of the good

cause requirement which dismisses the ability to review such claims on their merits in a capital

habeas case. With respect to the potential merit of the new claims, the context of a capital case

precludes any present in-depth look into such claims. Petitioner will claim that investigation,

Case 2:06-cv-00705-TLN-CSK Document 22 Filed 03/26/07 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

 “Completed” as used in this order includes a refusal of the state supreme court to 1

review the newly added claims in a supplemental petition.

3

discovery, and/or briefing will need to be performed before such an analysis can be completed –

even on a tentative basis. By that time, the present state petition will in all likelihood have been

adjudicated, and the hoped for efficiency of presenting all claims in one state habeas petition will

have evaporated. In any event, respondent does not point to any of the newly added claims as

being plainly meritless.

Conclusion

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. No later than twenty days from the filed date of this order, petitioner is ordered

to present all newly added claims, i.e., claims which respondent could reasonably dispute as to

their exhausted status, forthwith to the state supreme court. The claims may be presented

through present state habeas counsel in a supplemental petition (preferred method), or if

necessary, in a filing by federal counsel seeking permission to intervene and add such new claims

in a supplemental state petition. Any filing shall include a copy of this Findings and

Recommendations and Order.

2. The undersigned stays any budgeting of this case until exhaustion is

completed.1

This order is not stayed by the mere seeking of reconsideration of the order before

the district judge.

The undersigned RECOMMENDS that the federal mixed petition be stayed until

such time that exhaustion is completed.

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

Case 2:06-cv-00705-TLN-CSK Document 22 Filed 03/26/07 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

“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: 3/26/07

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

__________________________________

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:gh:035

corn0705.f&r

Case 2:06-cv-00705-TLN-CSK Document 22 Filed 03/26/07 Page 4 of 4