Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02048/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02048-0/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

On the same day he filed his Petition, September 2, 2011, Petitioner filed a separate document in which 1

he describes difficulty procuring a certified copy of his prison trust account statement. [ECF No. 2.] However,

it appears from the documents attached by Petitioner that he has not followed the Corcoran State Prison

procedure for obtaining a certified trust account statement. Petitioner is advised to follow the procedures as

outlined by the correctional facility in which he is incarcerated for obtaining a certified copy of his trust account

statement. 

K :\C O M M O N \E V E R Y O N E \_EFILE-PRO SE\L A B \11cv2048 d ism iss.w pd, 91611 -1-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TERRENCE MAURICE STAMPS, Civil No. 11-2048 LAB (WMc)

Petitioner,

ORDER DISMISSING CASE 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

v.

CONNIE GIBSON, Warden

Respondent.

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

FAILURE TO SATISFY FILING FEE REQUIREMENT

Petitioner has failed to pay the $5.00 filing fee and has failed to move to proceed in forma

pauperis. Because this Court cannot proceed until Petitioner has either paid the $5.00 filing fee 1

or qualified to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court DISMISSES the case without prejudice.

See Rule 3(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. 

FAILURE TO ALLEGE EXHAUSTION OF STATE JUDICIAL REMEDIES

In addition, Petitioner has not alleged exhaustion as to claim two. (See Pet. at 9.) Having

preliminarily determined the petition contains an unexhausted claim, the Court notifies Petitioner

Case 3:11-cv-02048-LAB-JLB Document 3 Filed 09/16/11 Page 1 of 5
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

28 U.S.C. § 2254 (b)(1)-(2) states: 2

(b) (1) An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody

pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted unless it appears that

-

(A) the applicant has exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the State; or

(B)(i) there is an absence of available State corrective process; or (ii) circumstances exist

that render such process ineffective to protect the rights of the applicant.

 (2) An application for a writ of habeas corpus may be denied on the merits, notwithstanding

the failure to the applicant to exhaust the remedies available in the courts of the State.

K :\C O M M O N \E V E R Y O N E \_EFILE-PRO SE\L A B \11cv2048 d ism iss.w pd, 91611 -2-

of his options if he chooses to proceed with the case. 

The exhaustion requirement is satisfied by providing the state courts with a “fair

opportunity” to rule on Petitioner’s constitutional claims. Anderson v. Harless, 459 U.S. 4, 6

(1982). In most instances, a claim is exhausted once it is presented to a state’s highest court,

either on direct appeal or through state collateral proceedings. See Sandgathe v. Maass, 314 2

F.3d 371, 376 (9th Cir. 2002). The constitutional claim raised in the federal proceedings must

be the same as that raised in the state proceedings. See id. 

Here, it appears that Petitioner’s claim that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to

put forth the imperfect self-defense theory was not presented to the California Supreme Court.

(Pet. at 9.) 

2. PETITIONER’S OPTIONS

To avoid the Court dismissing the petition on its own accord, Petitioner may choose one

of the following options.

i) First Option: Demonstrate Exhaustion

Petitioner may file further papers with this Court to demonstrate that he has in fact

exhausted the claim the Court has determined are likely unexhausted. If Petitioner chooses this

option, his papers are due no later than November 22, 2011. Respondent may file a Reply by

December 7, 2011.

ii) Second Option: Voluntarily Dismiss the Petition

Petitioner may move to voluntarily dismiss his entire federal petition and return to state

court to exhaust his unexhausted claim. Petitioner may then file a new federal petition

containing only exhausted claims. See Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 510, 520-21 (stating that

a petitioner who files a mixed petition may dismiss his petition to “return[] to state court to

Case 3:11-cv-02048-LAB-JLB Document 3 Filed 09/16/11 Page 2 of 5
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

28 U.S.C. § 2244 (d) provides: 3

(1) A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to an application for a writ of habeas corpus

by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court. The limitation period

shall run from the latest of--

(A) the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct

review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review;

(B) the date on which the impediment to filing an application created by State

action in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States is removed, if the

applicant was prevented from filing by such State action;

(C) the date on which the constitutional right asserted was initially recognized by

the Supreme Court, if the right has been newly recognized by the Supreme Court and

made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review; or

(D) the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or claims presented could

have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence.

(2) The time during which a properly filed application for State post-conviction or other

collateral review with respect to the pertinent judgement or claim is pending shall not be

counted toward any period of limitation under this subsection.

K :\C O M M O N \E V E R Y O N E \_EFILE-PRO SE\L A B \11cv2048 d ism iss.w pd, 91611 -3-

exhaust his claims”). If Petitioner chooses this second option, he must file a pleading with this

Court no later than November 22, 2011. Respondent may file a reply by December 7, 2011.

Petitioner is cautioned that any new federal petition must be filed before expiration of the

one-year statute of limitations. Ordinarily, a petitioner has one year from when his conviction

became final to file his federal petition, unless he can show that statutory or equitable “tolling”

applies. Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167, 176 (2001); 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). The statute of 3

limitations does not run while a properly filed state habeas corpus petition is pending. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2244(d)(2); see Nino v. Galaza, 183 F.3d 1003, 1006 (9th Cir. 1999). But see Artuz v.

Bennett, 531 U.S. 4, 8 (2000) (holding that “an application is ‘properly filed’ when its delivery

and acceptance [by the appropriate court officer for placement into the record] are in compliance

with the applicable laws and rules governing filings.”); Bonner v. Carey, 425 F.3d 1145, 1149

(9th Cir. 2005) (holding that a state application for post-conviction relief which is ultimately

dismissed as untimely was neither “properly filed” nor “pending” while it was under

consideration by the state court, and therefore does not toll the statute of limitations), as

amended 439 F.3d 993. However, absent some other basis for tolling, the statute of limitations

continues to run while a federal habeas petition is pending. Duncan, 533 U.S. at 181-82.

iii) Third Option: Formally Abandon Unexhausted Claim

Petitioner may formally abandon his unexhausted claim and proceed with his exhausted

one. See Rose, 455 U.S. at 510, 520-21 (stating that a petitioner who files a mixed petition may

Case 3:11-cv-02048-LAB-JLB Document 3 Filed 09/16/11 Page 3 of 5
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

28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2) provides that a claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus 4

application under § 2254 shall be dismissed unless:

(A) the applicant shows that the claim relies on a new rule of constitutional law, made

retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously

unavailable; or 

(B) (i) the factual predicate for the claim could not have been discovered previously

through the exercise of due diligence; and 

(ii) the facts underlying the claim, if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as a

whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for

constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the applicant guilty of

the underlying offense. 

K :\C O M M O N \E V E R Y O N E \_EFILE-PRO SE\L A B \11cv2048 d ism iss.w pd, 91611 -4-

“resubmit[] the habeas petition to present only exhausted claims”). If Petitioner chooses this

third option, he must file a pleading with this Court no later than November 22, 2011. 

Respondent may file a reply by December 7, 2011.

Petitioner is cautioned that once he abandons his unexhausted claim, he may lose the

ability to ever raise it in federal court. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 488 (2000) (stating

that a court’s ruling on the merits of claims presented in a first § 2254 petition renders any later

petition successive); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (a)-(b).4

iv) Fourth Option: File a Motion to Stay the Federal Proceedings

Petitioner may file a motion to stay this federal proceeding while he returns to state court

to exhaust his unexhausted claim. There are two methods available to Petitioner, the “stay and

abeyance” procedure and the “withdrawal and abeyance” procedure.

If Petitioner wishes to use the “stay and abeyance” procedure he should ask the Court to

stay his mixed petition while he returns to state court to exhaust. Under this procedure he must

demonstrate there are arguably meritorious claims which he wishes to return to state court to

exhaust, that he is diligently pursuing his state court remedies with respect to those claims, and

that good cause exists for his failure to timely exhaust his state court remedies. Rhines v.

Webber, 544 U.S. 269, 277-78 (2005). 

If Petitioner wishes to use the “withdrawal and abeyance” procedure, he must voluntarily

withdraw his unexhausted claim, ask the Court to stay the proceedings and hold the

fully-exhausted petition in abeyance while he returns to state court to exhaust, and then seek

permission to amend his petition to include the newly exhausted claim after exhaustion is

complete. King v. Ryan, 564 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. May 5, 2009). Although under this procedure

Case 3:11-cv-02048-LAB-JLB Document 3 Filed 09/16/11 Page 4 of 5
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

K :\C O M M O N \E V E R Y O N E \_EFILE-PRO SE\L A B \11cv2048 d ism iss.w pd, 91611 -5-

Petitioner is not required to demonstrate good cause for his failure to timely exhaust, the newly

exhausted claim must be either timely under the statute of limitations or “relate back” to the

claim in the fully-exhausted petition, that is, they must share a “common core of operative facts”

with the previously exhausted claim. King, 564 F.3d at1143, quoting Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S.

644. 659 (2005).

If Petitioner chooses this fourth option, he must file a pleading with this Court no later

than November 22, 2011. Respondent may file a reply by December 7, 2011.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES the Petition for Petitioner’s failure to satisfy the

filing fee requirement and NOTIFIES PETITIONER THAT HE HAS FILED A PETITION

THAT CONTAINS BOTH EXHAUSTED AND UNEXHAUSTED CLAIMS. If Petitioner

wishes to proceed with this case, he must submit, no later than November 22, 2011, a copy of

this Order with the $5.00 fee or with adequate proof of his inability to pay the fee AND choose

one of the options outlined above. The Clerk of Court is directed to send Petitioner a blank

Southern District of California In Forma Pauperis Application along with a copy of this

Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 16, 2011

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-02048-LAB-JLB Document 3 Filed 09/16/11 Page 5 of 5