Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01479/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01479-6/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

COLLIE GEORGE DOWNER, No. CIV S-06-1479-DFL-CMK-P

Petitioner, 

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

M. CRAMER, Warden,

Respondent.

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pending before the court are respondent’s motion

to dismiss (Doc. 16) based on failure to exhaust state court remedies and petitioner’s motion for

an order to stay the pending action and hold consideration of exhausted claims in abeyance

pending exhaustion in state court (Doc. 18). 

In his motion to dismiss, respondent contends that the petition is mixed in that it

contains both exhausted and unexhausted claims. Specifically, of the six claims raised in the

petition, three of them are unexhausted. Respondent concedes that Claims I, III, and VI are

exhausted. Respondent contends, however, that Claims II, IV, and V are unexhausted. 

/ / /

Case 2:06-cv-01479-JKS-CMK Document 23 Filed 02/28/07 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

2

According to the petition, these claims are:

Claim II – “Judge Moscone was unduly prejudiced by Elizabeth’s father to deny

petitioner his right to a fair trial by a letter sent to the judge as part of his plan to

sue petitioner for $12,000,000.00.”

Claim IV – “The prosecutor committed constitutional error by eliciting, failing to

correct & arguing known false testimony & referring to evidence to support this

perjury which had been excluded by the court.”

Claim V – “Petitioner was denied his right to present a defense and his right to

present all evidence; cross-examination & confrontation due to the trial court’s

refusal to conduct an in camera review of Elizabeth’s diary in which she wrote

about the alleged assault.”

A review of petitioner’s state court filings, which respondent has submitted as exhibits to his

motion, reveals that these claims were not presented to the state court. Claims II and IV were

not raised at all. As to Claim V, while petitioner argued to the state court that the trial court

erred by refusing to allow the defense to present evidence of the victim’s psychological history,

petitioner did not raise any argument regarding the victim’s diaries. In response to respondent’s

motion to dismiss, petitioner filed a motion for a stay-and-abeyance order to allow him to present

his unexhausted claims to the state court. Thus, petitioner concedes that the petition contains

unexhausted claims. 

There are two approaches for analyzing a stay-and-abeyance motion, depending

on whether the petition is mixed or fully exhausted. See Jackson v. Roe, 425 F.3d 654, 661 (9th

Cir. 2005). If the petitioner seeks a stay-and-abeyance order as to a mixed petition containing

both exhausted and unexhausted claims, the request is analyzed under the standard announced by

the Supreme Court in Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005). See Jackson, 425 F.3d at 661. If,

however, the petition currently on file is fully exhausted, and what petitioner seeks is a stay-andabeyance order to exhaust claims not raised in the current federal petition, the approach set out in

Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2003), applies. See Jackson, 425 F.3d at 661. 

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:06-cv-01479-JKS-CMK Document 23 Filed 02/28/07 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

3

Because the petition in this case is mixed, Rhines applies. Under Rhines, as a

threshold condition for this court to exercise its discretion to issue a stay-and-abeyance order, the

court must determine that there was good cause for failing to exhaust his claims before raising

them in this case. See Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. at 277. If there is good cause for petitioner’s

failure to exhaust, it may be an abuse of discretion to deny stay and abeyance where there is no

indication of intentional dilatory litigation tactics. See id. at 278. Stay and abeyance is not

appropriate where the unexhausted claim is plainly meritless. See id. at 277.

In opposition to petitioner’s stay-and-abeyance motion, respondent argues that

petitioner has not demonstrated good cause justifying his failure to present the unexhausted

claims to the state court first. Respondent also argues that the unexhausted claims are plainly

meritless. As to why the claims were not presented to the state court first, petitioner states:

Petitioner responds to [respondent’s] contentions by stating that

based upon his limited knowledge and due to the limited access to the

prison law library due to numerous lock-downs, Petitioner believed that

his state appointed appellate counsel had exhausted these Claims in the

California Supreme Court by way of a Petition for Review. Apparently

this was not the case. 

Respondent argues that this is insufficient justification because petitioner had a copy of the

petition for review presented to the California Supreme Court by appointed appellate counsel

sometime in November 2005, as reflected on the proof of service, and must have known that all

his claims were not raised. In response, petitioner adds:

True, petitioner did possess the Petition for Review in preparing

his 210 page [federal habeas] Petition with over 1200 pages in exhibits. 

Petitioner is not a lawyer: has no formal legal training of anykind, and has

managed to put out a straight forward Petition, under adverse

circumstances. This was done while Petitioner has had not more than 2

hours (sometimes less) a week to access the prison law library, where he

has had to teach himself how to research and understand the law, and to

teach himself how to present factual claims for relief that are legitimate

and potentially meritorious claims for relief. (sic) (emphasis in original). 

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:06-cv-01479-JKS-CMK Document 23 Filed 02/28/07 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

4

The court finds that petitioner’s justification is not sufficient. Petitioner’s

conviction and sentence became final in January 2006 when the California Supreme Court

denied his petition for review. Because petitioner sought direct review of his conviction and

sentence, the one-year limitations period began running 90 days after the California Supreme

Court denied the petition for review – sometime in April 2006. See Patterson v. Stewart, 251

F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 2001). Petitioner did not seek any state post-conviction relief. He

filed the instant federal petition in June 2006, well within the one-year statute of limitations

imposed by AEDPA. Given these facts, and in light of the proof of service attached to the

petition for review filed by petitioner’s appointed appellate counsel, the court finds that

petitioner must have had a copy of the petition for review in hand sometime in November 2005

or, assuming mail delays, December 2005 at the latest. Petitioner also admits that he had the

petition for review at the time he was preparing the instant federal petition. Therefore, it is not

reasonable for petitioner to say that he did not present the unexhausted claims to the state court

before coming to this court because he believed the claims had been raised in the petition for

review. 

Given this timeline, petitioner should have known based on reading the petition

for review filed by his attorney that some of the claims he raises now were not raised in the state

court. Further, he must have known this sometime in December 2005 – well before expiration of

the one-year statute of limitations for filing this action. Petitioner does not explain why he never

asked the California Supreme Court for leave to add claims to his brief, or why he never sought

relief by way of state post-conviction proceedings. Because petitioner has not established good

cause for failure to present the unexhausted claims to the state court before filing this habeas

action, petitioner is not entitled to a stay-and-abeyance order. 

Respondent’s motion to dismiss should be granted because, as petitioner

concedes, the instant petition contains unexhausted claims. As respondent suggests in his

motion, however, petitioner should be given an opportunity to: (1) file an amended petition

Case 2:06-cv-01479-JKS-CMK Document 23 Filed 02/28/07 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

5

which deletes the unexhausted claims and presents only exhausted claims; or (2) accept

dismissal of the entire petition, including the exhausted claims, without prejudice to re-filing the

petition once all the claims have been exhausted in state court. 

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that:

1. Petitioner’s motion for a stay-and-abeyance order be denied;

2. Respondent’s motion to dismiss be granted; and

3. The matter be referred back to the Magistrate Judge to provide petitioner

the options outlined above. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 20 days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's

Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive

the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: February 28, 2007.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-01479-JKS-CMK Document 23 Filed 02/28/07 Page 5 of 5