Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-01324/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-01324-2/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

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

PAUL GORDON WHITMORE,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 09cv1324-MMA (MDD)

REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION THAT

PETITIONER’S MOTION TO

INCLUDE PREVIOUSLY

ABANDONED GROUNDS FOR

RELIEF BE DENIED. 

[Doc. No. 46]

vs.

MATTHEW CATE, Warden,

Respondent.

I. Procedural History

On May 26, 2009, Paul Gordon Whitmore (“Petitioner”), a prisoner proceeding pro se and

in forma pauperis, filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

(Doc. No. 1). On November 3, 2009, the Court sent Petitioner a Notice Regarding Possible

Dismissal of Petition for Failure to Exhaust State Court Remedies. (Doc. No. 21). In that Notice,

the Court informed Petitioner that claims number 4, 5, and 6 of his Petition were unexhausted. Id.

The Court advised Petitioner of his options, including his options to either voluntarily and

formally abandon those claims, or seek a stay of the action while those claims were exhausted. Id. 

On December 16, 2009, Petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss Claim Nos. 5 and 6, And to

Ask for Clarification as to Claim No. 4. (Doc. No. 31). In that Motion, Petitioner informed the

Court that he had considered the options presented to him by the Court in its November 3, 2009

Notice, and that he was choosing to voluntarily and formally abandon Claims 5 and 6. Id. The

- 1 - 09cv1324-MMA (MDD)

Case 3:09-cv-01324-MMA-MDD Document 51 Filed 05/26/11 Page 1 of 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

Court granted Petitioner’s Motion, dismissing Claims 5 and 6 as unexhausted, and again advised

Petitioner of his options with regard to Claim 4. Id. 

On January 21, 2010, Petitioner filed a Motion to Stay the proceedings so that he could

exhaust Claim 4. (Doc. No. 34). The Court granted the Motion, allowing Petitioner to file a

Petition for Habeas Corpus with the state court so that Petitioner could properly exhaust Claim 4. 

(Doc. No. 35). On September 1, 2010, Petitioner filed the instant Motion to Include Previously

Abandoned Grounds for Relief (“Motion”), asking that he be allowed to amend his Petition to

include Claims 5 and 6, the claims he had formally abandoned. (Doc. No. 46). On October 1,

2010, Respondent filed a Response in Opposition (“Opposition”). (Doc. No. 47). On November

4, 2010, Petitioner filed a Reply to Defendants’ Opposition (“Reply”). (Doc. No. 48). 

II. Discussion

In his Motion, Petitioner seeks to re-incorporate into his Petition two claims, Claims 5 and

6, that he had previously abandoned. (Doc. No. 46). In Claim 5, Petitioner contends that he was

denied his Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury and his Fourteenth Amendment right to Due

Process when the state court that convicted him used defective jury forms. Id. In Claim 6,

Petitioner contends that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury, and his

Fourteenth Amendment right to Due Process when the trial court used “hopelessly flawed

procedure” to find Petitioner guilty. Id. Petitioner explains that these claims were not included in

his Petition to the California Supreme Court, and were therefore unexhausted when he filed his

Petition in federal court. Id. Petitioner contends that when he learned that these claims, as well as

Claim 4, were unexhausted, he requested and received a stay and abeyance with regard to all three

claims, and returned to the State Supreme Court to properly exhaust. Petitioner contends that

revival of these claims is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

Petitioner mischaracterizes the status of his claims. While Claim 4 was stayed pursuant to

the Court’s February 2, 2010 Order (Doc No. 35), Claims 5 and 6 were dismissed. Petitioner

himself filed the motion to “dismiss and abandon” Claims 5 and 6, stating that he “considered each

of the options the court noted in the Notice Regarding Possible Dismissal of Petition” and that he

“understands the potential consequences of [his] motion.” (Doc. No. 31). 

- 2 - 09cv1324-MMA (MDD)

Case 3:09-cv-01324-MMA-MDD Document 51 Filed 05/26/11 Page 2 of 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

In his Opposition, Respondent contends that Petitioner cannot revive his claims because

they are barred by the statute of limitations. (Doc. No. 47). Respondent acknowledges that

Petitioner filed his federal Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus before the statute of limitations

period expired. Id. However, Respondent notes that under Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167, 181

(2001), Petitioner’s filing of his federal Petition did not stop the statute of limitations from running

on Petitioner’s claims. (Doc. No. 47). Respondent contends that the statute of limitations expired

as to Claims 5 and 6 prior to the Court’s dismissal of those claims, and thus they are now barred. 

(Doc. No. 47). 

In his Reply, Petitioner counters that he only dismissed Claims 5 and 6 because he did not

wish to delay his federal action. (Doc. No. 48). Petitioner contends that the one-year statute of

limitations period applies only to a complete application for habeas corpus, not to the individual

grounds for relief stated within the application. Id. Thus, Petitioner contends that he is not barred

from merely reviving some grounds for relief as he did not dismiss his Petition in its entirety. Id.

Respondent is correct that the one-year statute of limitations period has expired on Claims

5 and 6. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(a), a one-year period of limitation, running from “the date

on which judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time

for seeking such review[,]” applies to an application for a writ of habeas. This period began

running on November 16, 2008, the last date Petitioner could have petitioned the United States

Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari following the denial of review of his conviction by the

California Supreme Court. Petitioner filed his federal Petition on May 26, 2009 (Doc. No. 1),

before the statute of limitations expired. However, the filing of a federal petition does not stop the

statute of limitations from running. Duncan, 533 U.S. at 181-82. Accordingly, the statute of

limitations period expired on November 16, 2009. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(a). 

Petitioner was warned twice by the Court that if he chose to voluntarily abandon his

claims, they may be “forever barred from federal court habeas review” (Doc. No. 12) (emphasis in

original) and he may “lose the ability to ever raise it in federal court.” (Doc No. 32). Petitioner

acknowledged the Court’s warning, and when he brought his Motion to Dismiss Claims 5 and 6,

stated that he “understands the potential consequences.” (Doc. No. 31). Despite this

- 3 - 09cv1324-MMA (MDD)

Case 3:09-cv-01324-MMA-MDD Document 51 Filed 05/26/11 Page 3 of 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

acknowledgment, Petitioner now asks this Court to treat Claims 5 and 6 as though they had been

stayed, rather than dismissed. Petitioner had the option to seek a stay and abeyance before

dismissing Claims 5 and 6, and did not. In order to do so, Petitioner would have had to

demonstrate that: (i) there are arguably meritorious claims that he wishes to return to state court to

exhaust; (ii) that he is diligently pursuing his state court remedies with respect to each claim; and

(iii) that good cause exists for his failure to timely exhaust. (Doc. No. 32) (citing Rhines v.

Webber, 544 U.S. 269, 277-78 (2005). Petitioner’s current Motion, if granted, would achieve the

same effect as a stay of Claims 5 and 6, but completely avoid the requirements laid out above. The

Court finds that there is no good cause to grant Petitioner’s Motion, and that, in any case, revival

of Petitioner’s claims is time-barred and improper. Duncan, 533 U.S. at 176.

As for Petitioner’s argument that Duncan only bars the filing of a new “petition” and not

merely revival of new claims, the Court finds it without merit. Petitioner has not presented any

authority by which this Court could permit the introduction of either a petition or individual claims

once the statute of limitations period has expired. Additionally, Petitioner’s contention that Claims

5 and 6 should relate back to the date of his original Petition is likewise without merit. Petitioner

cites Mayle v.Felix, 545 U.S. 644, 655-56 (2005) in support of his argument. However, Mayle

discusses the relation back of claims “first asserted in an amended petition[.] Id. at 656. Here,

Petitioner asserted Claims 5 and 6 in his original petition. He has not changed the substance of

those claims. Thus, relation back is improper. 

Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that Petitioner’s Motion be DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

This report and recommendation will be submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (1988). Any party may

filed written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties by June 15, 2011. The

document shall be captioned “Objections to Report and Recommendation.” Any reply to the

objections shall be served and filed by June 24, 2011.

/ / /

/ / /

- 4 - 09cv1324-MMA (MDD)

Case 3:09-cv-01324-MMA-MDD Document 51 Filed 05/26/11 Page 4 of 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

The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive

the right to raise those objections on appeal of the Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153

(9th Cir. 1991). 

DATED: May 26, 2011

 

 Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin

 U.S. Magistrate Judge

 

- 5 - 09cv1324-MMA (MDD)

Case 3:09-cv-01324-MMA-MDD Document 51 Filed 05/26/11 Page 5 of 5