Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02173/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02173-2/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

18-cv-2173-LAB-AGS

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Ryan JONES,

Petitioner,

v.

Raymond MADDEN, Warden

Respondent.

Case No.: 18-cv-2173-LAB-AGS

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

TO GRANT PETITIONER’S 

UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR 

WITHDRAWAL AND ABEYANCE 

(ECF Nos. 12 & 14)

On September 28, 2018, the Court notified petitioner Ryan Jones that his habeas 

corpus petition was deficient because it contained both exhausted and unexhausted claims.

(ECF No. 2, at 2.) Specifically, Jones failed to present Claims 3-6 to the California 

Supreme Court. (Id.) To remedy this defect, Jones moves to withdraw Claims 3-6 until he 

fully exhausts those claims in state court and to stay this federal case until that exhaustion

is finalized. The Warden did not respond to or oppose these motions.

To achieve a “withdrawal and abeyance,” a petitioner must (1) voluntarily withdraw 

his unexhausted claims, (2) ask the Court to stay the proceedings and hold the petition’s 

fully-exhausted portion in abeyance while he returns to state court to exhaust the rest, and 

(3) seek permission to amend his petition to include the newly exhausted claims after 

exhaustion is complete. King v. Ryan, 564 F.3d. 1133, 1135 (9th Cir. 2009). Jones is not 

required to demonstrate good cause for his failure to timely exhaust. Id. at 1141. But the 

newly exhausted claims must be either timely under the statute of limitations or “relate 

Case 3:18-cv-02173-LAB-DEB Document 17 Filed 01/24/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

18-cv-2173-LAB-AGS

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

back” to the claims in the fully-exhausted petition by sharing a “common core of operative 

facts” with the previously exhausted claims. Id. (quoting Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644. 659 

(2005)).

With his current motions, Jones has satisfied the first two requirements for 

withdrawal and abeyance. In those motions, he also vows that—after state review and 

exhaustion of Claims 3-6—he will seek to amend his original petition to include only fully 

exhausted claims that relate back to his original petition. Thus, the requested stay is 

appropriate, particularly since “an outright dismissal will render it unlikely or impossible 

for the petitioner to return to federal court within the one-year limitation period.” See 

Jackson v. Roe, 425 F.3d 654, 659 (9th Cir. 2005).

The Court recommends that the following Order be entered:

1. Jones’s unopposed motions for withdrawal and abeyance are GRANTED;

2. Jones’s unexhausted Claims 3-6 are DISMISSED;

3. The remainder of Jones’s habeas petition is STAYED; and

4. Jones must FILE periodic written status reports summarizing his efforts to 

exhaust his dismissed claims. The first report will be due by April 1, 2020, and 

subsequent reports will be due every three months thereafter (July 1, 2020; 

October 1, 2020; and so on).

Within 14 days of service of this report, the parties must file any objections to it. See

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The party receiving any such objection has 14 days to file any 

response. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2).

Dated: January 24, 2020

Case 3:18-cv-02173-LAB-DEB Document 17 Filed 01/24/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2