Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_93-cv-05726/USCOURTS-caed-1_93-cv-05726-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 535
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Death Penalty
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Ptn for Writ of H/C - Stay of Execution

---

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 * Steven W. Ornoski is substituted for his predecessor, Jeanne S.

Woodford as Warden of San Quentin State Prison under Federal Rule

93dp5726.ODtr'gRespt2FileResp.How.wpd 1 of Civil Procedure 25(d).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Albert Cecil Howard,

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. )

)

Steven W. Ornoski, As Acting )

Warden of San Quentin )

State Prison,* )

)

Respondent. )

)

Case No. CV F-93-5726-REC 

DEATH PENALTY CASE

ORDER DIRECTING THE WARDEN TO

FILE POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

RESPONSIVE TO PETITIONER’S

MOTION TO FILE AMENDED PETITION

NUNC PRO TUNC

Petitioner Albert Cecil Howard (“Howard”) commenced this action

on October 25, 1993 with a request for appointment of federal counsel

and a stay of execution of his death sentence. Almost three and onehalf years later, on March 14, 1997, Howard filed his original federal

petition. On April 23, 1997, Howard filed a state exhaustion petition

alleging all known federal claims that had not been included in the

original federal petition. The Court then ordered abeyance of the

federal proceedings pending resolution of the state exhaustion

petition on May 30, 1997. 

On June 15, 1999, the Court granted Howard’s request to permit

him to file his amended federal petition (encompassing both the claims

in the original federal petition and the federal claims in the state

Case 1:93-cv-05726-LJO Document 135 Filed 11/15/05 Page 1 of 4
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

93dp5726.ODtr'gRespt2FileResp.How.wpd 2

exhaustion petition) within 30 days after his federal counsel received

notice of the order denying his state exhaustion petition by the

California Supreme Court. At the time the June 1999 order was issued,

the Ninth Circuit had held that AEDPA was not applicable to cases like

Howard’s, that had been commenced prior to April 24, 1996, the date

AEDPA became effective. That precedent has since been abrogated by

the United States Supreme Court decision in Woodford v. Garceau, 538

U.S. 202 (2003). In Garceau, the Court held that it is the filing of

“an application for habeas relief seeking an adjudication on the

merits of petitioner’s claims” that determines the applicability of

AEDPA, not merely the commencement of a federal habeas action. Id.

at 207. Since Howard’s original “application for habeas relief

seeking an adjudication on the merits” of his claims was filed on

March 14, 1997, AEDPA applies to the evaluation of his petition. Id.

Citing additional changes in controlling Supreme Court precedent

regarding abeyance and exhaustion, Howard now moves the Court for an

order permitting him to file his proposed amended petition, nunc pro

tunc, as of April 23, 1997, the date on which he filed his state

exhaustion petition. Specifically, Howard is relying on the Supreme

Court’s decision in Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. ___ 125 S. Ct. 1528

(2005), for the proposition that a district court has discretion to

hold in abeyance a petition that contains both exhausted and

unexhausted claims during the pendency of state exhaustion

proceedings. Howard’s proposed amended petition arguably is such a

mixed petition, since a portion of the claims therein alleged also are

before the California Supreme Court on Howard’s state exhaustion

petition. 

Case 1:93-cv-05726-LJO Document 135 Filed 11/15/05 Page 2 of 4
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

93dp5726.ODtr'gRespt2FileResp.How.wpd 3

A hearing is set for December 12, 2005 at 1:30 p.m. on Howard’s

present motion. Pursuant to Rule 78-230(c) of the Local Rules of the

Eastern District of California, a memorandum of points and authorities

in opposition to the motion by Respondent Steven W. Ornoski, as Acting

Warden of San Quentin State Prison (the “Warden”) is due no later than

14 days prior to the date of the scheduled hearing, that is November

28, 2005.

Although Howard does not raise the issue in his moving papers,

the law regarding filing amended petitions also has changed since this

Court issued its June 1999 order. Notably, Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544

U.S. ___, 125 S. Ct. 1807 (2005), has altered the jurisprudence

concerning statutory tolling under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2), and Mayle

v. Felix, 544 U.S. ___, 125 S. Ct. 2562 (2005) has limited the

application of the relation-back doctrine under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 15(c). 

In light of the possibility that the California Supreme Court may

well deny some or all of Howard’s state habeas claims as untimely as

well as on the merits, the Court is interested in knowing the Warden’s

views as to the applicability of Pace to Howard’s proposed amended

petition. In addition, the Court would like to know whether the

Warden views the limitations announced in Felix to be applicable

because the Warden contends that the new claims in Howard’s proposed

amended petition do not arise out of a common core of operative facts

alleged in the original federal petition. Finally, the Court directs

the Warden to address the issue of equitable tolling. Specifically,

if the Court declines to permit nunc pro tunc filing of Howard’s

proposed amended petition as of April 23, 1997, and both Pace and

Felix apply, the Court would like the Warden’s view on the

Case 1:93-cv-05726-LJO Document 135 Filed 11/15/05 Page 3 of 4
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

93dp5726.ODtr'gRespt2FileResp.How.wpd 4

availability of equitable tolling under Calderon v. United States

Dist. Court (Beeler), 128 F.3d 1283 (9th Cir. 1997) on the grounds

that “extraordinary circumstances” beyond Howard’s control made it

impossible for him to file his amended petition within the statutory

period.

The Warden’s points and authorities should be electronically

filed no later than November 28, 2005. Local Rule 78-230(c).

Howard’s reply points and authorities, if any, shall be electronically

filed no later than December 5, 2005. Local Rule 78-230(d).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 14, 2005 

 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

Robert E. Coyle

 United States District Judge

Case 1:93-cv-05726-LJO Document 135 Filed 11/15/05 Page 4 of 4