Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00870/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00870-7/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

RONALD WAYNE COOLEY,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-05-0870 FCD DAD P

vs.

ROSANNE CAMPBELL, et al.,

Respondents. ORDER

 /

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

corpus challenging a judgment of conviction entered by the Sacramento County Superior Court

on May 30, 2003. The petition has been fully briefed and is submitted for decision. Before the

court is petitioner’s motion for stay and abeyance.

Petitioner’s submitted petition alleges the following grounds for relief: (1) the

admission of evidence of petitioner’s propensity to commit sex offenses violated petitioner’s

rights to due process and equal protection or, in the alternative, the trial court abused its

discretion by failing to exclude such evidence; (2) the trial court’s instructions on the use of

propensity evidence violated petitioner’s right to due process; (3) the trial court abused its

discretion by denying petitioner’s motion for substitution of counsel; (4) the trial court abused its

discretion and violated petitioner’s right to due process by failing to declare a doubt as to

Case 2:05-cv-00870-FCD-DAD Document 29 Filed 04/19/06 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

2

petitioner’s mental competency when petitioner was on suicide watch during trial; and (5)

petitioner’s sentence must be vacated pursuant to Blakely v. Washington. Respondents filed

their answer to these claims on November 4, 2005, and lodged the state court records on

November 21, 2005. Petitioner filed his traverse on February 2, 2006.

Petitioner moves for stay and abeyance in order to exhaust “further grounds

discovered after filing the original habeas corpus petition and respondent’s answer.” (Pet’r’s

Mot. for Stay & Abeyance at 1.) Petitioner cites the likelihood that he will be “time and or

procedurally barred” from raising additional grounds for relief if the stay and abeyance procedure

is not granted in this case. Petitioner argues that the state will not be disadvantaged and will not

be prevented from advancing any defense, while he, on the other hand, will most likely be

permanently barred from raising his new claims after this action is resolved. Petitioner concludes

with the statement that he wishes to return to state court to exhaust the following claims: (1) the

evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions in counts 1 through 6; (2) the prosecutor

committed misconduct; and (3) “cumulative error was pervasive,” denying him his Sixth

Amendment right to a fair trial.

In Rhines v. Weber, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s discretion to

stay a federal habeas proceeding to allow the petitioner to present unexhausted claims to the state

court where there is good cause for the petitioner’s failure to exhaust all claims in state court

before filing a federal habeas petition. Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, , 125 S. Ct. 1528,

1534-35 (2005). See Anthony v. Cambra, 236 F.3d 568, 575 (9th Cir. 2000) (authorizing district

courts to stay fully exhausted federal petitions pending exhaustion of other claims); Calderon v.

United States Dist. Court (Taylor), 134 F.3d 981, 987-88 (9th Cir. 1998) (recognizing the district

court’s authority to allow a petitioner to amend a mixed petition to delete unexhausted claims

and hold the fully exhausted petition in abeyance). The Supreme Court cautioned that “stay and

abeyance should be available only in limited circumstances” and “is only appropriate when the

district court determines there is good cause for the petitioner’s failure to exhaust his claims first

Case 2:05-cv-00870-FCD-DAD Document 29 Filed 04/19/06 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

3

in state court.” 125 S. Ct. at 1535. Even where good cause is shown, the district court should

not grant a stay if the new claims are plainly meritless. Id. Federal proceedings may not be

stayed indefinitely, and reasonable time limits must be imposed on a petitioner’s return to state

court to exhaust additional claims. Id.

Petitioner’s pending motion is vague and conclusory. The court is unable to

determine whether petitioner had good cause for failing to discover and exhaust all claims before

he filed this action. Petitioner’s mere listing of three new claims is insufficient to demonstrate

that the unexhausted claims are potentially meritorious, and petitioner has not offered a

declaration under penalty of perjury in which he states facts showing that he acted with diligence

in discovering and pursuing the new claims. See Taylor, 134 F.3d at 987 nn. 8 & 11 (failure to

make a showing of diligence in pursuing additional claims may foreclose a stay). Nor has

petitioner shown that the new claims will not be barred by the statute of limitations if presented

to the federal court at this late date, almost three years after petitioner’s judgement of conviction

was entered. See Mayle v. Felix, U.S. , 125 S. Ct. 2562 (2005). For these reasons,

petitioner’s defective motion will be denied.

Petitioner will be granted thirty days to file and serve a new motion for stay and

abeyance. In his renewed motion, petitioner must show good cause for his failure to discover and

exhaust each of his new claims prior to filing this action. Petitioner must identify each new

claim fully and set forth supporting facts that demonstrate the potential merit of each claim. 

Petitioner must state with specificity when and how he discovered each new claim. Petitioner

must describe the current status of state court proceedings on the unexhausted claims or explain

why he has not already filed a habeas petition in the California Supreme Court. Petitioner must

provide a declaration under penalty of perjury in which he demonstrates that he has acted with

diligence in pursuing his new claims. Finally, petitioner must demonstrate that the new claims

will not be barred by the statute of limitations.

/////

Case 2:05-cv-00870-FCD-DAD Document 29 Filed 04/19/06 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

4

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s February 2, 2006 motion for stay and abeyance is denied without

prejudice;

2. Petitioner is granted thirty days to file and serve a new motion for stay and

abeyance that makes the showing described in this order;

3. Respondents’ opposition or statement of non-opposition to petitioner’s

renewed motion shall be filed and served within thirty days after petitioner’s motion is placed in

the mail to respondents’ counsel; and

4. Petitioner’s reply to any opposition shall be filed and served within twenty

days after the opposition is served.

DATED: April 19, 2006.

DAD:13

cool0870.mstay

Case 2:05-cv-00870-FCD-DAD Document 29 Filed 04/19/06 Page 4 of 4