Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01709/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01709-0/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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KONESAVANH DONALD

SIRYPANGNO, Civil No. 13-1709-MMA (NLS)

Petitioner,

ORDER GRANTING STAY AND

ABEYANCE

v.

FRED FOULK, Warden, et al.,

Respondents.

On July 22, 2013, Petitioner, represented by counsel, filed a Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in this Court challenging his convictions

for first degree murder, attempted murder, assault with a semi-automatic firearm, and

various gang and gun enhancements [Doc. Nos. 1, 3]. Respondent has filed an

Answer, and Petitioner has filed a Traverse [Doc. Nos. 14, 18]. Two of Petitioner’s

claims relate to his conviction for first degree murder as an aider and abettor via the

doctrine of natural and probable consequences. (Pet. at 6-7, Doc. No. 1; Mem. of P. &

A. Supp. Pet. at 12-23, Doc. No. 3.) 

Shortly after briefing was completed in this case, the California Supreme Court

addressed one of Petitioner’s jury instruction claims in People v. Chiu, 59 Cal. 4th

155, 165 (June 2, 2014). The jury instruction on the natural and probable

consequences theory in Chiu are the same as the one given in Sirypangno’s case,

-1- 13cv1709

Case 3:13-cv-01709-MMA-NLS Document 28 Filed 09/17/14 Page 1 of 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

specifically, CALCRIM 403. Compare id at 160-61 with Lodgment No. 3, vol. 2 at

0540. Thus, the parties were directed to file briefs discussing how Chiu applied to

Petitioner’s case. Briefing was completed on July 21, 2014 [Doc. Nos. 23-24]. 

Thereafter, on August 12, 2014, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause why a stay

should not be granted to permit Petitioner to seek relief under Chiu from the state

supreme court [Doc. No. 25]. Both parties agree a stay should be granted [Doc. Nos.

26-27].

Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows:

1. A stay of proceedings is hereby GRANTED in this case.

2. This action is stayed pending a determination by the California Supreme

Court as to whether Petitioner is entitled to relief pursuant to Chiu.

3. Petitioner must file, every ninety (90) days starting with the filing date of

this Order, a status report that details Petitioner’s progress in the California Supreme

Court.

4. Petitioner must file in this Court, within thirty (30) days after the California

Supreme Court issues a final order resolving Petitioner’s Chiu claim, a motion

requesting that the stay be lifted, and that leave to file a First Amended Petition

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 be granted. Petitioner must include a proposed First

Amended Petition with that filing; and

5. The Clerk of Court will administratively close this case until further order of

this Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 17, 2014

Hon. Michael M. Anello

United States District Judge

-2- 13cv1709

Case 3:13-cv-01709-MMA-NLS Document 28 Filed 09/17/14 Page 2 of 2