Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01223/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01223-5/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

WALTER JOHNSON,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-05-1223 DFL DAD P

vs.

M.L. EVANS,

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for a writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The petition has been fully briefed and is submitted. 

Before the court is petitioner’s May 15, 2007 document styled, “Notice Of Motion And Motion

Seeking Leave To Amended [sic] Petition For Writ Of Habeas Corpus Raising Newly

Unexhausted Claims (Rule Of Civil Procedure Rule 15(a) and (d)). Evidentiary Hearing

Requested.”

The court has provided petitioner numerous opportunities to explain what new

claims he seeks to raise and to move for a stay and abeyance. On February 9, 2007, petitioner

filed his first motion requesting leave to file an amended petition to include newly exhausted

claims. The court examined petitioner’s exhibits, including the first page of a recently filed

habeas petition with the Sacramento County Superior Court, and determined that it was not clear

Case 2:05-cv-01223-JAM-DAD Document 31 Filed 06/12/07 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

2

whether the new claims were exhausted. See Order, filed 2/22/07. The court advised petitioner

to file a new motion for leave to amend which included his proposed amended petition. (Id.) In

the event the new claims were unexhausted, petitioner was advised that he should file a motion

for a stay and abeyance which demonstrated good cause for the stay as required by Rhines v.

Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 277 (2005). (Id.) On March 9, 2007, petitioner filed a motion for a stay

and abeyance; however, he failed to provide the information as directed by the court in its

February 22 order. Specifically, petitioner did not attempt to make a showing of good cause for

his failure to exhaust all of his claims before filing his federal petition. Accordingly, the court

denied the motion but granted petitioner a final opportunity to file a proper motion for a stay and

abeyance which addressed the requirements set out by the Supreme Court in Rhines. See Order

filed 4/19/07. 

Petitioner’s pending motion again merely requests leave to amend so that he may

“submit newly unexhausted claims to his current pending petition for writ of habeas corpus.”

(Mot., filed 5/15/07, at 1.) Petitioner has previously been advised that if his proposed new claims

are unexhausted, he must file a motion for a stay and abeyance which satisfies the requirements

set out Rhines along with a proposed amended petition. Petitioner has failed to do so. 

Specifically, petitioner has failed to provide the court with a proposed amended petition

containing all of his claims as directed. He has also failed to move for stay and abeyance and has

not addressed the reasons for his failure to exhaust all of his claims before filing his federal

petition. Therefore, petitioner’s motion for leave to amend will be denied.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s May 15, 2007 motion

for leave to amend his petition is denied without prejudice.

DATED: June 11, 2007.

DAD:4

john.1223.amd2

Case 2:05-cv-01223-JAM-DAD Document 31 Filed 06/12/07 Page 2 of 2