Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01638/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01638-0/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

05cv1638

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDDIE WANSLEY,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 05cv1638-IEG(LSP)

ORDER VACATING STAY;

DISMISSING UNEXHAUSTED

CLAIM; ORDERING RESPONSE

REGARDING REMAINING CLAIMS

vs.

JIM HALL, Warden, Ironwood State Prison,

Respondent.

This case was stayed on March 15, 2006 to allow Petitioner to exhaust state remedies

regarding his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel based upon counsel’s failure to investigate

and present alibi evidence proving his innocence. Because Petitioner has failed to proceed

diligently to exhaust such claim, the Court at this time lifts the stay, dismisses Plaintiff’s

unexhausted claim, and orders Respondent to file a response to Petitioner’s remaining claims.

Procedural History

Petitioner’s original filing contained four claims for relief: (1) new evidence proved his

innocence; (2) ineffective assistance of counsel based upon counsel’s failure to conduct an

investigation regarding the photographic lineup; (3) insufficiency of the evidence; and (4)

prosecution misconduct based upon failure to provide exculpatory fingerprint report. [Doc. No. 1]

Petitioner indicated Claims 1 and 4 had not been presented to the California Supreme Court. The

First Amended Petition, filed on October 7, 2005, contained only two claims for relief:

(1) ineffective assistance of counsel based upon both the failure to conduct an investigation

regarding the photographic lineup and failure to investigate and present an alibi defense; and (2)

Case 3:05-cv-01638-IEG-LSP Document 44 Filed 04/01/08 Page 1 of 5
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

05cv1638

insufficiency of the evidence. Petitioner stated that both claims were exhausted. [Doc. No. 5.] 

However, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss, arguing Petitioner’s claim of ineffective

assistance of counsel based upon the failure to investigate and present an alibi defense was never

presented to the California Supreme Court.

In response to the motion to dismiss, Petitioner acknowledged his ineffective assistance of

counsel claim related to newly discovered evidence was not exhausted. [Doc. No. 17, p. 5; Doc.

No. 19, p.5.] Petitioner asked that the Court hold his petition in abeyance and allow him time to

exhaust the new claim. [Doc. No. 19.] Respondent opposed Petitioner’s request for a stay. [Doc.

No. 22.] On May 15, 2006, Magistrate Judge Papas granted Petitioner’s motion to stay the case to

allow Petitioner to exhaust his claim. Judge Papas ordered Petitioner to file a petition for a writ of

habeas corpus with the appropriate state court within 30 days, and to provide proof to the Court

when the California Supreme Court ruled on his newly discovered claim. [Doc. No. 25, pp. 14-

15.]

On June 15, 2006, Petitioner filed a status report indicating he had filed a petition for a writ

of habeas corpus with the San Diego County Superior Court. [Doc. No. 28.] Petitioner filed seven

periodic status reports thereafter, between August 29, 2006 and November 28, 2007, indicating the

San Diego County Superior Court had yet to take any action on the petition. [Doc. Nos. 29-32, 34,

38, and 40.] On December 14, 2007, Petitioner filed a status report stating he had just learned the

San Diego County Superior Court denied his petition on August 17, 2006. [Doc. No. 41.] 

Petitioner’s counsel stated he had sent a letter to Petitioner advising him of these events and

seeking authorization to file a “second petition.” [Id., p.2.]

On or before February 27, 2008, this Court determined from a check of the database of the

California appellate courts that Petitioner had not filed any additional habeas corpus petitions in

the California Court of Appeal or California Supreme Court. As a result, the Court issued an order

to show cause why the stay should not be immediately lifted due to Petitioner’s lack of diligence

in seeking exhaustion. [Doc. No. 42.] The Court directed Petitioner to provide a file-stamped

copy showing a habeas corpus petition has been filed with the California Court of Appeal or

California Supreme Court, or explain why such filing has not yet been made.

Case 3:05-cv-01638-IEG-LSP Document 44 Filed 04/01/08 Page 2 of 5
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

05cv1638

On March 17, 2008, Petitioner filed a response to the order to show cause. In the response,

Petitioner reiterates the confusion with regard to the Superior Court’s denial of Petitioner’s habeas

corpus petition. Petitioner does not, however, state whether he has made any attempt to file a new

habeas corpus petition with the California Court of Appeal or California Supreme Court, to

exhaust his new claim so that it may be presented to this Court for review under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

Discussion

Although the Court stayed proceedings in this case to allow Petitioner to exhaust his state

court remedies with regard to Claim 1, Petitioner has failed to either exhaust his remedies or

proceed diligently to do so. “A petitioner has satisfied the exhaustion requirement if: (1) he

has ‘fairly presented’ his federal claim to the highest state court with jurisdiction to

consider it, . . . or (2) he demonstrates that no state remedy remains available.” Johnson v.

Zenon, 88 F.3d 828, 829 (9th Cir. 1996)(citations omitted). Although this case has been

stayed since May 15, 2006, Petitioner has yet to file any petition with the “highest state

court with jurisdiction to consider” his new claim. 

Petitioner’s lack of diligence justifies lifting the stay at this time. Under long-standing

principles of equity, a lack of diligence by a federal petitioner may result in the Court’s denial or

equitable relief. Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 419 (2005) (petitioner not entitled to

equitable tolling of statute of limitations because of lack of diligence in pursuing those claims); 

Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005) (because of timeliness concerns expressed in AEDPA,

district court may place reasonable time limits upon petitioner’s trip back to state court). 

Petitioner in this case is represented by counsel who, after obtaining a stay in this Court,

filed an initial state habeas petition in the San Diego County Superior Court in June of 2006. Rule

7.2.4 of the Rules Governing Proceedings states the court “will either summarily deny the petition

or issue an alternative order to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted” within

15 days of the filing of such a petition. Nonetheless, Petitioner allowed more than 17 months to

pass before he checked with the San Diego County Superior Court regarding the status of the

petition. Furthermore, since learning on December 7, 2007 that the Superior Court denied his

petition, Petitioner has let another four months pass without filing any additional petitions with the

Case 3:05-cv-01638-IEG-LSP Document 44 Filed 04/01/08 Page 3 of 5
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

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2), Petitioner may only file a second habeas corpus

petition under very limited circumstances which the Court doubts would apply in this case.

2

Petitioner’s conviction became final on November 17, 2004, upon the expiration of the

time for him to seek review by petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court.

cite His federal habeas corpus petition was filed on August 17, 2005; however, such filing did not

toll the statute of limitations. cite Petitioner did not file his state petition with the San Diego

County Superior Court until June 13, 2006, [Doc. No. 28, p.20] well more than a year after his

conviction became final. Therefore, if the Court were to dismiss this petition to allow him to

exhaust his two claims, he would be barred from re-filing his petition at a later date.

3

In the event Petitioner completes exhaustion of his new claim prior to a decision on the

merits of his remaining claims, he may be able to amend his petition at that time in accordance

with the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 15. Rasberry v. Garcia, 448 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 2006) (in

determining whether to allow amendment of habeas corpus petition, district court may consider

whether there is any evidence of undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive with respect to the filing

of the amended petition).

05cv1638

California Court of Appeal or California Supreme Court in order to exhaust the new claims.

Therefore, the Court hereby lifts the stay of proceedings in this matter. The Amended

Petition includes an unexhausted claim that Petitioner was denied the effective assistance of

counsel based upon counsel’s failure to investigate and present an alibi defense. Petitioner’s other

two claims, that his counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to conduct an investigation

regarding the photographic lineup and that there was insufficient evidence to support the

conviction, have been presented to the state’s highest court and are therefore exhausted. 

Ordinarily, the Court would give Petitioner the option of dismissing his entire petition in order to

pursue exhaustion of his new claims, so that all of his claims could be heard.1 However, the

statute of limitations under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) would prevent Petitioner from re-filing any of his

claims.2

 Therefore, the Court hereby DISMISSES Petitioner’s unexhausted claim3 that his trial

counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failure to investigate and present an alibi defense based

upon newly discovered evidence and orders that the case shall proceed with regard to the

remaining claims. 

Conclusion

For the reasons set forth herein, the Court hereby lifts the stay of this case, and

DISMISSES Petitioner’s unexhausted claim that his trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective

for failure to investigate and present an alibi defense based upon newly discovered evidence.

Respondent shall file and serve an answer to the remaining claims in the Petition, as well

Case 3:05-cv-01638-IEG-LSP Document 44 Filed 04/01/08 Page 4 of 5
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

05cv1638

as points and authorities in support of such answer, no later than May 16, 2008. At the time

Respondent files the answer, Respondent shall lodge with the Court all records bearing on the

merits of Petitioner’s remaining claims. The lodgments shall be accompanied by a notice of

lodgment which shall be captioned “Notice of Lodgment in 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Habeas Corpus Case

– To Be Sent to the Clerk’s Office.” 

Petitioner may file a traverse to matters raised in the answer no later than June 13, 2008.

Any traverse by Petitioner (a) shall state whether Petitioner admits or denies each allegation of fact

contained in the answer; (b) shall be limited to facts or arguments responsive to matters raised in

the answer; and (c) shall not raise new grounds for relief that were not asserted in the Petition. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 1, 2008

IRMA E. GONZALEZ, Chief Judge

United States District Court

cc: Counsel of Record

Eddie Wansley, Jr.

P-54870

Ironwood State Prison

PO Box 2199

Blythe, CA 92226-2199

Case 3:05-cv-01638-IEG-LSP Document 44 Filed 04/01/08 Page 5 of 5