Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-05494/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-05494-1/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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

KENNETH DEAN DAWSON, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

THE PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA, 

Respondent. 

Case No. 19-cv-05494-PJH 

ORDER DISMISSING MOTION TO 

STAY WITH LEAVE TO AMEND 

Re: Dkt. No. 25 

Petitioner, a California prisoner, proceeds with a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 2254. The petition was dismissed with leave to amend. Petitioner has not 

filed an amended petition but did file a motion for a stay. 

BACKGROUND 

Petitioner was sentenced to 20 years in prison after he pleaded no contest to three 

counts of second-degree robbery. People v. Dawson, No. H041904, 2016 WL 758786, at 

*1 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 26, 2016). The California Court of Appeal affirmed his conviction 

on February 26, 2016. Id. This court can find no record of a petition for review with the 

California Supreme Court immediately following the affirmance by the California Court of 

Appeal. In 2019 petitioner filed habeas petitions with the Santa Clara County Superior 

Court, California Court of Appeal and California Supreme Court. Petition (Docket No. 10) 

at 3-4. The petitions were all denied in 2019. 

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. 

Case 4:19-cv-05494-PJH Document 26 Filed 01/29/20 Page 1 of 5
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 Californi

a

§ 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. § 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 does not present distinct claims though he appears to argue that his 

sentence was improper because the distinction between violent and non-violent offenses 

violates the law. He also argues that he should be resentenced pursuant to California 

Senate Bill 1393 which provides discretion for trial courts to strike or dismiss prior serious 

or violent felonies used to enhance sentences. Senate Bill 1393 became law on 

September 30, 2018. 

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, which became law on 

April 24, 1996, imposed for the first time a statute of limitations on petitions for a writ of 

habeas corpus filed by state prisoners. Petitions filed by prisoners challenging noncapital 

state convictions or sentences must be filed within one year of the latest of the date on 

which: (A) the judgment became final after the conclusion of direct review or the time 

passed for seeking direct review; (B) an impediment to filing an application created by 

unconstitutional state action was removed, if such action prevented petitioner from filing; 

(C) the constitutional right asserted was recognized by the Supreme Court, if the right 

was newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactive to cases on collateral 

review; or (D) the factual predicate of the claim could have been discovered through the 

exercise of due diligence. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). 

Case 4:19-cv-05494-PJH Document 26 Filed 01/29/20 Page 2 of 5
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 Californi

a

In the original screening order, the court noted that it appeared that this petition 

was untimely. The California Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction on February 26, 

2016. If petitioner did not seek review with the California Supreme Court, then the 

petition is untimely because the statute of limitations expired in 2017. Petitioner was 

advised that he should indicate if he sought review from the California Supreme Court in 

2016 on direct review. His later state habeas petitions do not affect the analysis because 

a state habeas petition filed after AEDPA's statute of limitations ended cannot toll the 

limitations period. See Ferguson v. Palmateer, 321 F.3d 820, 823 (9th Cir. 2003) 

(“[S]ection 2244(d) does not permit the reinitiation of the limitations period that has ended 

before the state petition was filed,” even if the state petition was timely filed). 

Petitioner was also informed that assuming that this petition is timely, petitioner is 

still not entitled to relief. If he sought resentencing in this petition, which contains the 

same arguments presented to the state courts, the state courts have already denied his 

requests. To the extent petitioner claimed that California law had been violated, any such 

claim is dismissed because federal habeas relief is not available for state law errors. A 

“federal court may issue a writ of habeas corpus to a state prisoner ‘only on the ground 

that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United 

States.’” Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 216, 219 (2011) (citations omitted). 

Petitioner has failed to address these issues. He has not indicated if he filed a 

petition with the California Supreme Court on direct review in 2016. He has not clarified 

his claims or even if this petition presents cognizable federal claims. In his motion for a 

stay petitioner presents boiler plate exhibits regarding the statute of limitations and 

procedural default. Yet, he does not address how these arguments relate to his petition 

and claims. Nor does petitioner present any arguments for a stay. The motion for a stay 

is dismissed with leave to amend. 

Petitioner is advised that in Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005) 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 good cause is shown for a failure to 

Case 4:19-cv-05494-PJH Document 26 Filed 01/29/20 Page 3 of 5
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

have first exhausted the claims in state court, that the claim or claims at issue potentially 

have merit and that there has been no indication that petitioner has been intentionally 

dilatory in pursuing the litigation. Rhines, supra, at 277-78. If petitioner wishes to stay 

this action, he shall file a motion addressing the Rhines factors. 

In the alternative, petitioner may file a motion for a stay pursuant to the three-step 

procedure outlined in Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2003) and King v. Ryan, 564 

F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 2009).1 A petitioner seeking to avail himself of the Kelly three-step 

procedure is not required to show good cause, as under Rhines, but rather must show 

that the amendment of any newly exhausted claims back into the petition satisfies both 

Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644, 655 (2005), by sharing a “common core of operative facts” 

and Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167 (2001), by complying with the statute of limitations. 

King, 564 F.3d at 1141-43 (finding district court’s dismissal of unexhausted claims was 

improper because petitioner was not required to show good cause to avail himself of the 

Kelly three-part procedure but affirming the dismissal as harmless because the 

unexhausted claims did not relate back to the claims in the original petition that were fully 

exhausted at the time of filing). However, no statute of limitations protection is imparted 

by such a stay, nor are exhausted claims adjudicated during the pendency of such a stay. 

The motion for a stay is dismissed without prejudice. Petitioner may file an 

amended motion addressing the standards set forth above. Petitioner should also 

indicate what claims he wishes to exhaust if a stay is requested. The court notes that the 

state courts have already denied petitioner’s recent claims. Petitioner must also file an 

amended petition. He must address if the petition is timely, he must present distinct 

claims and describe how they present viable federal claims. 

1 “Pursuant to the Kelly procedure, (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 petition and reattaches the newly-exhausted claims to the original petition.” King v. Ryan, 564 F.3d at 

1134 (citing Kelly, 315 F.3d at 1070-71).

Case 4:19-cv-05494-PJH Document 26 Filed 01/29/20 Page 4 of 5
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

CONCLUSION 

1. The motion for stay (Docket No. 25) is DISMISSED with leave to amend in

accordance with the standards set forth above. Petitioner may file an amended motion 

for stay by February 28, 2020. An amended petition must be filed no later than 

February 28, 2020, and carry the words AMENDED PETITION on the first page. Failure 

to amend within the designated time will result in the dismissal of the petition. 

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: January 29, 2020 

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON 

United States District Judge 

/s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton 

Case 4:19-cv-05494-PJH Document 26 Filed 01/29/20 Page 5 of 5