Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00726/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00726-0/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

JOHN S. TINKER, 

Petitioner, No. CIV S-06-0276 MCE KJM P

vs.

TOM L. CAREY, 

Respondent. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Petitioner is a state prison inmate proceeding pro se with a petition for a writ of

habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his Sacramento County conviction for

manslaughter and his term of twelve years. The petition raises three grounds: (1) the prosecutor

committed misconduct in closing argument by vouching for his case, (2) the imposition of the

upper term for manslaughter violated Blakely v. Washington, 524 U.S. 296 (2004), and (3) the

trial court committed sentencing error by incorporating portions of the probation report into its

findings and by using the fact of the enhancement to impose the upper term (dual use of facts). 

In the answer, respondent contends that the third ground was not exhausted

because it had not been included in the petition for review. An examination of that petition,

Lodged Document No. 4, reveals that petitioner presented only the first two grounds to the 

/////

Case 2:06-cv-00726-MCE -KJM Document 13 Filed 11/17/06 Page 1 of 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

2

California Supreme Court. As a result, ground three is not exhausted. Picard v. Connor, 404

U.S. 270, 276 (1971).

 Petitioner has filed a motion for a stay of this action to permit him to exhaust the

third claim. He also has attached a copy of a habeas petition he recently filed in the California

Supreme Court. 

In Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005), the Supreme Court held:

[I]t likely would be an abuse of discretion for a district court to

deny a stay. . . if the petitioner had good cause for this failure to

exhaust, his unexhausted claims are potentially meritorious, and

there is no indication that the petitioner engaged in intentionally

dilatory litigation tactics.

Id. at 278. 

Petitioner has not satisfied the Rhines standard, for the record suggests

petitioner’s request for a stay would delay the litigation unnecessarily. The exhaustion petition

attached to the motion for a stay presents a single argument: petitioner was denied the effective

assistance of appellate counsel because counsel failed to challenge trial counsel’s failure to

object to the identified sentencing errors, which the Court of Appeal found to be waived by the

failure to object. The state petition will not exhaust claim three; to do so would require yet

another exhaustion petition to be filed in the state court. 

Moreover, claim three may not present a federal question. A mistake of state law

does not constitute a due process violation absent arbitrary, discriminatory or fundamentally

unfair action. Kennick v. Superior Court, 736 F.2d 1277, 1280 (9th Cir.1984); Cooks v.

Spalding, 660 F.2d 738, 739 (9th Cir.1981). Petitioner does not allege facts indicating the

California courts' application of its sentencing rules was arbitrary, discriminatory or

fundamentally unfair.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that petitioner's request for a

stay of this case be denied. 

/////

Case 2:06-cv-00726-MCE -KJM Document 13 Filed 11/17/06 Page 2 of 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

3

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 twenty

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

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are advised

that 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: November 16, 2006. 

2

tink0726.sty

Case 2:06-cv-00726-MCE -KJM Document 13 Filed 11/17/06 Page 3 of 3