Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-04759/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-04759-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EUREKA DIVISON

DANIEL LLOYD HOWARD,

Petitioner,

v.

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF 

CALIFORNIA,

Respondent.

Case No. 16-cv-4759-RMI (PR) 

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS WITH 

LEAVE TO AMEND

Dkt. Nos. 19, 20

Petitioner, a California prisoner, proceeds with a petition for a writ of habeas corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The petition was stayed so petitioner could exhaust further claims. 

(Doc. 14.) He has now filed motions to lift the stay. (Doc. 19, 20.) 

BACKGROUND

Petitioner was found guilty of one count of first degree murder, one count of conspiracy to 

commit murder, two counts of attempted murder, one count of criminal threats, and one count of 

kidnapping. People v. Howard, No. A139179, 2015 WL 7736634, at *1 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 30, 

2015). The California Court of Appeal affirmed the two counts of attempted murder, the count of 

criminal threats, and the kidnapping count. Id. at 24. The court reversed the first degree murder 

and the conspiracy to commit murder convictions. Id. The court stated that if the prosecution 

elects not to retry the first degree murder charge, the judgment will be modified to be a second 

degree murder conviction. The case was remanded to the trial court to either retry the charges or 

modify the judgment. Id. The California Supreme Court denied the petition for review on March 

9, 2016. It is not clear if petitioner will be retried on the murder and conspiracy counts.

Case 4:16-cv-04759-YGR Document 22 Filed 04/11/18 Page 1 of 3
2

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

DISCUSSION

Standard of Review

This court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus "in behalf of a person in 

custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in 

violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Rose v. 

Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). Habeas corpus petitions must meet heightened pleading 

requirements. McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994). An application for a federal writ of 

habeas corpus filed by a prisoner who is in state custody pursuant to a judgment of a state court 

must “specify all the grounds for relief available to the petitioner . . . [and] state the facts 

supporting each ground.” Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. 

“‘[N]otice’ pleading is not sufficient, for the petition is expected to state facts that point to a ‘real 

possibility of constitutional error.’” Rule 4 Advisory Committee Notes (quoting Aubut v. Maine, 

431 F.2d 688, 689 (1st Cir. 1970)). 

Legal Claims

Petitioner states that on two separate occasions he submitted petitions to the California 

Supreme Court, but he never received confirmation that his petitions were filed. Petitioner argues 

that he has exhausted his claims due to the California Supreme Court’s unresponsiveness. 

Prisoners in state custody who wish to challenge collaterally in federal habeas proceedings 

either the fact or length of their confinement are first required to exhaust state judicial remedies, 

either on direct appeal or through collateral proceedings, by presenting the highest state court 

available with a fair opportunity to rule on the merits of each and every claim they seek to raise in 

federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), (c); Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 515-16 (1982).

In this case it does not appear that the California Supreme Court has been provided an 

opportunity to rule on the claims and the stayed claims remain unexhausted. Petitioner’s

allegations that he sent filings to the court are insufficient to demonstrate exhaustion. The court 

notes that petitioner previously informed this court that he submitted his petitions to the Alameda 

County Superior Court. Docket No. 16. Furthermore, this court has reviewed the California 

Supreme Court docket and while petitioner’s earlier cases have been located, there is no record of 

Case 4:16-cv-04759-YGR Document 22 Filed 04/11/18 Page 2 of 3
3

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

any petition being filed after this case was stayed. Petitioner shall inform the court if he has any 

California Supreme Court docket number or if he filed the cases using a different name. 

Otherwise, petitioner can elect to voluntarily dismiss the unexhausted claims and the case will 

continue on the exhausted claim or claims.1 Or petitioner can continue to exhaust these claims in 

state court and the stay will continue. Petitioner is again informed that before he may challenge 

either the fact or length of his confinement in a habeas petition in this court, he must present to the 

California Supreme Court any claims he wishes to raise in this court.

CONCLUSION

1. Petitioner’s motions to lift the stay (Docket Nos. 19, 20) are DENIED without 

prejudice. Within twenty-eight days of service of this order petitioner must file an amended 

motion describing how he wishes to proceed with respect to the options discussed above.

2. Petitioner must keep the court informed of any change of address and must comply with 

the court's orders in a timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for 

failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). See Martinez v. Johnson, 

104 F.3d 769, 772 (5th Cir. 1997) (Rule 41(b) applicable in habeas cases).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 11, 2018

________________________

ROBERT M. ILLMAN

United States Magistrate Judge

 1 In prior orders the court identified the exhausted claim that petitioner sought to present. If 

petitioner now argues there are many other additional claims that were previously exhausted he 

must demonstrate these claims were previously presented to the California Supreme Court on 

direct review.

Case 4:16-cv-04759-YGR Document 22 Filed 04/11/18 Page 3 of 3