Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-01436/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-01436-3/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY EARL RICHARD,

Petitioner, No. 2:12-cv-1436 GEB DAD P

vs.

SUSAN HUBBARD,

Respondent. 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. Pending before the court is petitioner’s motion to amend

and proposed second amended petition.1

On February, 11, 2013, the court reviewed the two federal habeas petitions

petitioner filed in this action as well as petitioner’s motion for a stay and abeyance. Based on the

documents submitted by petitioner, the court could not determine which of petitioner’s claims

were exhausted and which were then pending before the state courts. Instead of ruling on

petitioner’s motion for a stay and abeyance at that time, the court explained to petitioner the two

 On August 13, 2013, the undersigned issued an order addressing petitioner’s motion to 1

amend instead of the intended findings and recommendations. Under these circumstances, the

undersigned will vacate the previous order, and the case will proceed in accordance with the

findings and recommendations set forth herein. 

1

Case 2:12-cv-01436-GEB-DB Document 21 Filed 08/14/13 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

stay and abeyance procedures available to him under Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir.

2003) and Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 277 (2005) and instructed petitioner to either: (a) file

a declaration indicating he wishes to proceed under the Kelly stay procedure and file an amended

habeas petition in this court containing only exhausted claims, or (b) file an amended petition

that contains all of his exhausted and unexhausted claims, together with a renewed motion for a

stay and abeyance with sufficient facts and information to satisfy the requirements of Rhines. 

(Order Filed Feb. 11, 2013) Petitioner has since filed a motion to amend his petition pursuant to

Kelly and a proposed second amended petition containing two presumably exhausted claims. 

Under the Kelly stay and abeyance procedure: 

(1) the petitioner amends his petition to delete any unexhausted

claims, (2) the court stays and holds in abeyance the amended, fully

exhausted petition, allowing petitioner the opportunity to proceed

to state court to exhaust the deleted claims, and (3) petitioner later

amends his petition and re-attaches the newly-exhausted claims to

the original petition. 

King v. Ryan, 564 F.3d 1133, 1135 (9th Cir. 2009). 

The court will honor petitioner’s request and recommend that his motion to

amend be granted and this action be stayed pursuant to Kelly. The court will further recommend

that petitioner be directed to exhaust his state remedies on any unexhausted claims forthwith and

file a motion to lift the stay of this action within thirty days of the state’s highest court issuing a

decision on his petition exhausting his claims. The court reminds petitioner that he will be able

to amend his petition in this action with his newly exhausted claims only if they are timely under

the statute of limitations governing the filing of federal habeas petitions. See King, 564 F.3d at

1140-41. If petitioner’s newly-exhausted claims are untimely, he will only be able to amend his

petition to include them if they share a “common core of operative facts” with the claims set

forth in his original federal petition. Id. at 1141. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the court’s August 13, 2013 order

is vacated.

2

Case 2:12-cv-01436-GEB-DB Document 21 Filed 08/14/13 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

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Petitioner’s original motion for a stay and abeyance (Doc. No. 2) be denied as

moot;

2. Petitioner’s motion to amend his petition pursuant to the Kelly stay and

abeyance procedure (Doc. No. 18) be granted;

3. Petitioner be ordered to exhaust his state remedies on any unexhausted claims

forthwith;

4. This action be stayed and the Clerk of the Court be directed to administratively

close the case;

5. Petitioner be ordered to file and serve a status report in this case on the first

court day of each month; and

6. Petitioner be ordered to file and serve a motion to lift the stay of this action, a

motion to amend the petition, and a proposed third amended petition containing only exhausted

claims within thirty days after petitioner is served with the California Supreme Court’s order

disposing of his state exhaustion petition.

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 seven days after service of the objections. The parties are 

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

3

Case 2:12-cv-01436-GEB-DB Document 21 Filed 08/14/13 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

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: August 14, 2013.

DAD:9

rich1436.sty(2)

4

Case 2:12-cv-01436-GEB-DB Document 21 Filed 08/14/13 Page 4 of 4