Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_12-cv-05753/USCOURTS-cand-5_12-cv-05753-16/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 California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

KEITH STAMPS,

Plaintiff,

v.

RANDY GROUNDS,

Defendant.

Case No. 12-cv-05753-BLF 

ORDER REINSTATING STAY

[Re: ECF 38]

After the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals remanded this case for the limited purpose of 

ruling on Petitioner’s motion to reopen proceedings, this Court granted Stamps’ motion and 

reopened the action without reinstating the previously imposed stay. ECF 37. In its order, the 

Court ordered Petitioner and his attorney of record, Donald Bergerson, to discuss the pendency of 

the action and to file an amended petition alleging that Petitioner’s claims are entirely exhausted 

or to provide an update regarding when the claims will be exhausted. ECF 37. 

On September 15, 2016, Mr. Bergerson filed a letter with this Court. ECF 38. In the 

letter, Mr. Bergerson provides an update of his attempts to contact Petitioner to discuss this action, 

which, as of the date of the letter, had been unsuccessful. The letter also indicates that “the 

California Supreme Court has at long last granted review on the primary issue on which Stamps 

sought and obtained a Rhines v. Weber stay.” Id. The Court construes Mr. Bergerson’s letter as a 

motion to reinstate the stay instituted by Judge Alsup. ECF 10. For the reasons discussed below, 

the motion is GRANTED and the action is STAYED.

Petitioner Keith Stamps is an inmate at Salinas Valley State Prison. Pet. 1, ECF 1. 

Petitioner was charged and convicted of one count of first-degree murder, enhanced with an 

allegation that he injured the victim with a firearm under Cal. Penal Code § 12022.53(d). Id. at 3, 

5. Prior to sentencing, the California trial court denied Petitioner’s motion for ineffective 

Case 5:12-cv-05753-BLF Document 42 Filed 10/17/16 Page 1 of 3
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 California

assistance of counsel. Id. at 5. 

According to Petitioner, he filed an appeal to California’s Court of Appeal claiming that: 

(1) there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction; (2) the trial court made an inadequate 

inquiry into petitioner’s motion for ineffective assistance of counsel; (3) the jury instructions were 

in federal constitutional error; and (4) counsel was ineffective by failing to request a clarifying 

instruction that provocation could reduce a first-degree murder to the second degree. Id. at 6. The 

Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction. Id. Petitioner’s request for review from the California 

Supreme Court was denied. Id.

Here, Stamps seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In addition to raising 

the allegedly exhausted claims listed above, through his petition, Stamps also raises three 

unexhausted claims: “(1) his sentencing as an adult to confinement greater than what could have 

been imposed on him as a juvenile violated the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments; (2) his 

sentence of fifty-years-to-life violated the Eight and Fourteenth Amendments; and (3) his sentence 

violated the Equal protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment since other minors, equally 

culpable of similar crimes, were exempt from such punishment.” Id. at 2. Along with his federal 

habeas petition, Petitioner filed a motion to stay pursuant to Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 

(2005), to stay and abate so he could pursue his unexhausted claims in state court. Judge Alsup 

granted Petitioners’ motion to stay upon a finding that Petitioner’s demonstrated good cause as to 

why he failed to exhaust his claims and showed that his allegedly unexhausted claims were not 

plainly meritless. ECF 10. 

On December 20, 2012, Stamps filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus before the 

Supreme Court of California. See No. S207482 (Cal.). In March 2014, the Supreme Court of 

California denied Stamps’ petition “without prejudice to any relief to which petitioner might be 

entitled after this court decides In re Alatriste, S214652 and In re Bonilla, S214960.” Id. On 

August 17, 2016, the Supreme Court of California transferred both In re Alatriste and In re 

Bonilla to the Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District with orders to vacate its prior denials of 

the petitioners’ writs of habeas corpus and show cause “why [each] petitioner is not entitled to 

make a record of ‘mitigating evidence tied to his youth.’” See No. S214652 (Cal.) (citing People 

Case 5:12-cv-05753-BLF Document 42 Filed 10/17/16 Page 2 of 3
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 California

v. Franklin, 63 Cal. 4th 261, 268–69, 283–84 (Cal. 2016)); No. S214960 (Cal.) (same); see also

ECF 38. 

The Supreme Court of California’s decision to deny Stamps’ petition without prejudice 

pending the outcome of In re Alatriste and In re Bonilla reveals that it is likely that any decision in 

those cases could alter the determination of Stamps’ unexhausted claims. Indeed, a favorable 

decision in those actions might even resolve Stamps’ petition entirely. Accordingly, IT IS 

HEREBY ORDERED this action shall be STAYED. The Court additionally ORDERS Petitioner 

or Mr. Bergerson to file an amended petition or an update to this Court by no later than April 14, 

2017. The update shall address the following:

1. The status of Petitioner’s claims, and in particularly, whether they are entirely 

exhausted or when they will be exhausted

2. The status of In re Alatriste and In re Bonilla, as relevant to Stamps’ petition; and

3. Whether or not Petitioner will be represented in this action, by Mr. Bergerson or 

otherwise. 

Finally, given Mr. Bergerson’s difficulty contacting Petitioner, the Court will provide 

notice of this order to him by mail at:

Keith Stamps AB1095

Salinas Valley State Prison

P.O. Box 1050 B5-135

Soledad, CA 93960.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 17, 2016

 ______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:12-cv-05753-BLF Document 42 Filed 10/17/16 Page 3 of 3