Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_11-cv-03062/USCOURTS-cand-5_11-cv-03062-7/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

---

Case No.: 11-cv-03062-EJD

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PETITIONER’S RENEWED MOTION TO FILE 

AMENDED PETITION

1

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

ROBERT LEE SMITH,

Petitioner,

v.

RONALD DAVIS,

Respondent.

Case No. 11-cv-03062-EJD 

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE PETITIONER’S 

RENEWED MOTION TO FILE 

AMENDED PETITION

Re: Dkt. Nos. 76

INTRODUCTION

On December 18, 2018, the Court denied without prejudice petitioner’s Motion To File 

Amended Petition And For Continued Stay on the grounds that petitioner failed to demonstrate 

that his new claims relate back to claims contained in his petition, as required by Mayle v. Felix, 

545 U.S. 644, 654 (2005). Petitioner subsequently filed a Renewed Motion To File Amended 

Petition, And Motion To Deem Claims Exhausted, Or, Alternatively, For Continued 

Stay/Abeyance. ECF Dkt. No. 76. Respondent filed an opposition on February 7, 2019. 

Petitioner filed a reply on February 14, 2019. For the reasons outlined below, petitioner’s motion 

is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to refiling once petitioner completes his exhaustion 

proceedings.

BACKGROUND

In 1993, a jury convicted petitioner of the first degree murders of Michelle Dorsey and 

James Martin, among other offenses, and found true the special circumstances that petitioner 

committed multiple murders and that each murder was committed in the course of a robbery. 

Case 5:11-cv-03062-EJD Document 79 Filed 02/26/19 Page 1 of 4
Case No.: 11-cv-03062-EJD

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PETITIONER’S RENEWED MOTION TO FILE 

AMENDED PETITION

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

Petitioner was sentenced to death. The Supreme Court of California affirmed his conviction and 

sentence. People v. Smith, 40 Cal. 4th 483 (2007).

On June 6, 2006, petitioner filed his state petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The 

Supreme Court of California denied this petition on June 15, 2011. Following two grants of 

equitable tolling, petitioner filed a federal habeas petition on November 28, 2012, the last day of 

his one-year limitations period.

1 ECF Dkt. No. 31. On September 11, 2013, the petition was 

stayed pending petitioner’s exhaustion of claims in state court. ECF Dkt. No. 52. Petitioner filed 

a state exhaustion petition on May 19, 2014. That petition remains pending before the California 

Supreme Court.

LEGAL STANDARD

A federal habeas petition “may be amended or supplemented as provided in the rules of 

procedure applicable to civil actions.” 28 U.S.C. § 2242. A party may amend a pleading once as a 

matter of course before a responsive pleading is served, and by leave of court or consent of the 

adverse party thereafter. Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 15(a). Leave to amend “shall be freely given when 

justice so requires.” Id. In Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962), the United States Supreme 

Court set forth factors courts should consider in deciding whether to grant leave to amend. They 

include undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, prejudice to the 

opposing party by allowance of the amendment, and futility of the amendment. Id. at 182; see 

also Bonin v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 815, 845 (9th Cir. 1996). Amendment may be futile if the statute 

of limitations bars a cause of action. United States v. Pittman, 209 F.3d 314, 318-19 (4th Cir. 

2000).

When proposed claims in an amendment are barred by the statute of limitations, Fed. Rule 

Civ. Proc. 15(c)(2) provides for the relation back of claims to the original pleading if the claims 

asserted in the amended pleading arise out of the conduct, transaction or occurrence set forth in the 

 

1 The Court’s Order granting equitable tolling a second time admonished petitioner to file future 

motions in a timely manner. ECF Dkt. No. 30.

Case 5:11-cv-03062-EJD Document 79 Filed 02/26/19 Page 2 of 4
Case No.: 11-cv-03062-EJD

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PETITIONER’S RENEWED MOTION TO FILE 

AMENDED PETITION

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

original pleading. In Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644, 654 (2005), the United States Supreme Court 

held that “so long as the original and amended petitions state claims that are tied to a common core 

of operative facts, relation back will be in order.”

DISCUSSION

Petitioner seeks to amend his petition to include “additional materials and facts discovered 

in the exhaustion process.” ECF Dkt. No. 76 at 10. He argues that but for the fact that his case is 

stayed, he would have a right to file an amended petition without leave of court pursuant to Fed. 

R. Civ. Proc. 15(a)(1) because a responsive pleading has not yet been filed. Id. at 9. Given that 

his case is stayed however, petitioner must seek leave of court to file an amendment. Petitioner 

offers a chart of his proposed amendments that aims to “provide the Court and Respondent 

sufficient information to identify any aspects of claims in the Amended Petition which may 

present issues of lack of exhaustion or statute of limitations issues.” Id. at 8. Respondent opposes 

petitioner’s motion.

Petitioner fails to demonstrate that temporarily lifting and re-imposing a stay at this time is 

warranted. He asserts because “California does not have a defined timeliness standard which 

applies to state habeas petitions”, it is not known whether his new claims will be deemed timely in 

state court. Id. at 18. Petitioner alleges that “there is a danger that any new matters in state court 

might be subject to preclusion unless an Amended Petition is filed.” Id. at 14. He seeks

amendment now in order to preserve his ability to receive federal review of the merits of his 

claims. Petitioner’s arguments however, fail to overcome the fact that his new claims are already 

untimely in federal court. He filed his federal habeas petition on November 28, 2012, the last day 

of his limitations period. See ECF Dkt. Nos. 30 &31. He now seeks to amend his petition over 

six years later, in February 2019. Petitioner broadly asserts that his new allegations are not 

untimely based on principles of equitable tolling, statutory tolling and relation back. He asserts 

that as to each new claim, the impediment to timely presentation was “state court limitations on 

funding, limitations on discovery in state court, and the State suppressing evidence.” ECF Dkt. 

Case 5:11-cv-03062-EJD Document 79 Filed 02/26/19 Page 3 of 4
Case No.: 11-cv-03062-EJD

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PETITIONER’S RENEWED MOTION TO FILE 

AMENDED PETITION

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

No. 76 at 11, citing ECF Dkt. 68, exhibits 242 & 243 (attorney declarations, executed in 2014,

describing state limits on funding and discovery). Finally, petitioner attributes all delay to “state 

actors”, including the “state court briefing” and adjudication process. ECF Dkt. No. 78 at 5. To 

the extent that petitioner blames the lack of state funding for the delayed presentation of his 

claims, it is not clear why the availability of federal funding during the preparation of his federal 

petition did not permit him to present all of his claims in a timely manner. Furthermore, to the 

extent that petitioner alleges that his new claims relate back to existing claims, his discussion of 

this issue is mostly comprised of a convoluted laundry list of revisions rather than a cogent 

discussion of any common core of operative fact between new and existing claims. See Mayle, 

545 U.S. at 654. Overall, petitioner’s perfunctory, conclusory allegations do not establish the 

timeliness of his claims or justify his delay in raising them. 

CONCLUSION

For the above-mentioned reason, petitioner’s motion is DENIED without prejudice to 

refiling once petitioner completes his exhaustion proceedings. The hearing scheduled for 

February 28, 2019 is vacated. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 26, 2019

______________________________________

EDWARD J. DAVILA

United States District Judge

Case 5:11-cv-03062-EJD Document 79 Filed 02/26/19 Page 4 of 4