Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00790/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00790-1/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 

RONALD W. DEMARTHRA, JR., 

Petitioner, 

v. 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF 

CALIFORNIA, 

Respondent. 

No. 2:16-cv-0790 TLN AC P 

ORDER 

 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with an application to proceed in forma pauperis. 

 Examination of the in forma pauperis application reveals that petitioner is unable to afford 

the costs of suit. Accordingly, the application to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted. See 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 

 The instant petition challenges petitioner’s conviction in Sacramento County Superior 

Court for assault with a deadly weapon and related offenses. ECF No. 1 at 2. The petition sets 

forth three grounds for relief. In Grounds One and Two, petitioner asserts that the admission of 

the complaining witness’ preliminary hearing testimony, in lieu of his live testimony at trial, 

violated petitioner’s Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. See id. at 3-4. Ground One alleges 

that the prosecution failed to show that the witness was unavailable at trial, while Ground Two 

alleges that petitioner did not have the opportunity to cross examine the witness during the 

Case 2:16-cv-00790-TLN-AC Document 8 Filed 05/17/16 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

preliminary hearing. See id. In Ground Three, petitioner asserts that there was insufficient 

evidence to support his conviction for assault. Id. at 6. 

 The petition indicates that all of the above grounds were raised on direct appeal, and that 

Grounds One and Two were included in the petition for review filed in the California Supreme 

Court. See ECF No. 1 at 7. However, petitioner did not list Ground Three (insufficiency of the 

evidence to support the assault conviction) as one of the issues raised in his petition to the 

California Supreme Court. See id. Accordingly, it is not clear whether Ground Three is 

exhausted. 

 Petitioner is advised that the exhaustion of state court remedies is a prerequisite to the 

granting of a petition for writ of habeas corpus. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). If exhaustion is to be 

waived, it must be waived explicitly by respondent’s counsel. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(3).1

 A waiver 

of exhaustion, thus, may not be implied or inferred. A petitioner satisfies the exhaustion 

requirement by providing the highest state court with a full and fair opportunity to consider all 

claims before presenting them to the federal court. Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276 (1971); 

Middleton v. Cupp, 768 F.2d 1083, 1086 (9th Cir. 1985). 

 Thus, if Ground Three has been presented to the California Supreme Court, then Ground 

Three is likely exhausted. 

 However, if Ground Three has not been presented to the California Supreme Court, then 

Ground Three is unexhausted, and petitioner’s options are: (1) to seek a stay of all claims pending 

exhaustion of Ground Three; (2) to voluntarily dismiss Ground Three and seek a stay of Grounds 

One and Two only pending exhaustion of Ground Three; or (3) to dismiss Ground Three and 

proceed on Grounds One and Two without a stay. 

If petitioner wishes the petition to be maintained as a mixed petition of both exhausted and 

unexhausted claims, he may seek a stay pursuant to Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005). In 

Rhines, the United States Supreme Court found that a stay and abeyance of a mixed federal 

petition should be available only in the limited circumstance that (1) good cause is shown for a 

 

1

 A petition may be denied on the merits without exhaustion of state court remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 

2254(b)(2). 

Case 2:16-cv-00790-TLN-AC Document 8 Filed 05/17/16 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

failure to have first exhausted the claims in state court, (2) the claim or claims at issue potentially 

have merit, and (3) there has been no indication that petitioner has intentionally delayed pursuing 

the litigation. Id., at 277-78. 

Alternatively, petitioner may seek to stay an exhausted-claims-only petition pursuant to 

Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2003). See King v. Ryan, 564 F.3d 1133, 1135 (9th Cir. 

2009) (citing three-step procedure of Kelly). Pursuant to the Kelly procedure, the court may stay 

a petition containing only exhausted claims while allowing the petitioner to proceed to state court 

to exhaust additional claims. Id. (citing Kelly, 315 F.3d at 1070-71). The procedure under a Kelly 

stay is as follows: “(1) a petitioner amends his petition to delete any unexhausted claims; (2) the 

court stays and holds in abeyance the amended, fully exhausted petition, allowing the petitioner 

the opportunity to proceed to state court to exhaust the deleted claims; and (3) the petitioner later 

amends his [federal] petition” to reincorporate the newly exhausted claims. Id. The Kelly stayand-abeyance procedure has no requirement of a good cause showing or that the claims are 

potentially meritorious. However, using the Kelly procedure means that any newly exhausted 

claims later added to the federal petition by amendment must relate back to the claims in the 

stayed petition; in other words, “the Kelly procedure, unlike the Rhines procedure, does nothing 

to protect a petitioner’s unexhausted claims from untimeliness in the interim.” Id. at 1141. 

In the event petitioner chooses to voluntarily dismiss Ground Three and proceed on an 

exhausted-claims-only petition without a stay, he is cautioned that any future attempt to amend 

the petition to add newly-exhausted claims might face challenges based on timeliness, the 

limitations applicable to second or successive petitions, and/or other procedural hurdles, 

depending on the circumstances. 

Directions to Petitioner 

Within twenty-eight days from the date of this order, petitioner must file a notice with the 

court indicating whether Ground Three is exhausted. In other words, petitioner must tell the 

court whether Ground Three (insufficiency of the evidence to support the assault 

conviction) was included in the petition for review filed in the California Supreme Court.

Case 2:16-cv-00790-TLN-AC Document 8 Filed 05/17/16 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

If Ground Three was presented to the California Supreme Court, then Ground Three is 

likely exhausted, and the court will order service of the petition as is. 

If Ground Three was not presented to the California Supreme Court, petitioner must 

inform the court as to how he wants to proceed. If petitioner wants to stay this case while 

exhausting Ground Three in state court, he must specify whether he seeks a stay under Rhines or 

under Kelly. If he wishes to proceed in this court on a mixed petition, he must file a motion for a 

stay addressing the Rhines factors, showing good cause for his failure to have first exhausted 

Ground Three in state court, that the claims potentially have merit, and that there is no evidence 

he has intentionally delayed pursuing the litigation. In the alternative, petitioner may request a 

Kelly stay. As previously noted, a Kelly stay does not guarantee the timeliness of claims 

exhausted in the future and then re-presented to this court. 

If petitioner fails to respond to this order, the court will proceed to order service of the 

petition without a stay. If it becomes apparent that Ground Three is unexhausted, it is likely that 

Ground Three will ultimately be dismissed. 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted (ECF No. 7); 

2. Within twenty-eight days from the filing date of this order, petitioner shall file a notice 

with the court indicating whether Ground Three is exhausted. If Ground Three is 

unexhausted, petitioner shall inform the court how he wishes to proceed as to Ground 

Three. 

3. If petitioner seeks a stay, within twenty-eight days of the filing date of this order, 

petitioner shall file a motion for a stay in accordance with this order. 

DATED: May 16, 2016 

Case 2:16-cv-00790-TLN-AC Document 8 Filed 05/17/16 Page 4 of 4