Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01349/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01349-3/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRANK ARTHUR CRAWSHAW, JR., No. 2:13-CV-1349-CMK-P

Petitioner, 

vs. ORDER

CALIFORNIA,

Respondent.

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pursuant to the written consent of all parties, this

case is before the undersigned as the presiding judge for all purposes, including entry of final

judgment. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

On July 17, 2015, the court granted respondent’s unopposed motion to dismiss. 

The court stated:

This action currently proceeds on the amended petition,

filed on August 11, 2014. Petitioner asserts two claims based on

insufficient evidence, as well as a claim for ineffective assistance of trial

counsel. As respondent accurately notes, while petitioner has presented

his claims of insufficient evidence to the California Supreme Court,

petitioner never raised his ineffective assistance of counsel claim in state

court. Respondent argues that the amended petition is, therefore, “mixed”

1

Case 2:13-cv-01349-CMK Document 29 Filed 09/17/15 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

and must be dismissed. 

Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), the exhaustion of available

state remedies is required before claims can be granted by the federal court

in a habeas corpus case. See Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (1982); see also

Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063, 1066 (9th Cir. 2003); Hunt v. Pliler, 336

F.3d 839 (9th Cir. 2003). Claims may be denied on the merits

notwithstanding lack of exhaustion. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2). “A

petitioner may satisfy the exhaustion requirement in two ways: (1) by

providing the highest state court with an opportunity to rule on the merits

of the claim . . .; or (2) by showing that at the time the petitioner filed the

habeas petition in federal court no state remedies are available to the

petitioner and the petitioner has not deliberately by-passed the state

remedies.” Batchelor v. Cupp , 693 F.2d 859, 862 (9th Cir. 1982)

(citations omitted). The exhaustion doctrine is based on a policy of federal

and state comity, designed to give state courts the initial opportunity to

correct alleged constitutional deprivations. See Picard v. Connor, 404

U.S. 270, 275 (1971); see also Rose, 455 U.S. at 518. 

When faced with petitions containing both exhausted and

unexhausted claim (mixed petitions), the Ninth Circuit held in Ford v.

Hubbard that the district court is required to give two specific warnings to

pro se petitioners: (1) the court could only consider a stay-and-abeyance

motion if the petitioner chose to proceed with his exhausted claims and

dismiss the unexhausted claims; and (2) federal claims could be timebarred upon return to federal court if he opted to dismiss the entire petition

to exhaust unexhausted claims. See 330 F.3d 1086, 1099 (9th Cir. 2003). 

However, the Supreme Court held in Pliler v. Ford that the district court is

not required to give these particular warnings. See 542 U.S. 225, 234

(2004) (footnote omitted). Furthermore, the district court is not required

to sua sponte consider stay and abeyance in the absence of a request from

the petitioner, see Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1148 (9th Cir. 2007),

or to inform the petitioner that stay and abeyance may be available, see

Brambles v. Duncan, 412 F.3d 1066, 1070-71 (9th Cir. 2005). Therefore,

in the absence of a stay-and-abeyance motion, the district court should

dismiss mixed petitions and need not provide any specific warnings before

doing so. See Robbins, 481 F.3d at 1147 (citing Rose, 455 U.S. at 510

(holding that the petitioner has the “choice of returning to state court to

exhaust his claims or of amending or resubmitting the habeas petition to

present only exhausted claims to the district court”)).

Because petitioner has not filed a stay-and-abeyance

motion, or any response whatsoever to respondent’s motion, the court

agrees with respondent that the current amended petition must be

dismissed.

Petitioner was directed to file an amended petition containing only exhausted claims within 30

days and warned that failure to do so would result in dismissal of the entire action for the reasons

outlined above. 

/ / /

2

Case 2:13-cv-01349-CMK Document 29 Filed 09/17/15 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

Instead of filing a petition containing only exhausted claims, petitioner now for

the first time seeks a stay-and-abeyance order to allow him to return to state court. Setting aside

for the moment the untimeliness of petitioner’s request, the court finds that it lacks merit. Under

Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005), as a threshold condition for this court to exercise its

discretion to issue a stay-and-abeyance order as to mixed petitions, the court must determine that

there was good cause for failing to exhaust claims before raising them in the federal case. See

Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. at 277. Here, other than stating “I did not know that these issues

needed to be addressed in the state courts first,” petitioner has made no showing of good cause,

and petitioner’s ignorance of the law is insufficient. Because petitioner has failed to file an

amended petition containing only exhausted claims, and because the court finds that a stay-andabeyance order is not warranted, the action will be dismissed. 

Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the

court has considered whether to issue a certificate of appealability. Before petitioner can appeal

this decision, a certificate of appealability must issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P.

22(b). Where the petition is denied on the merits, a certificate of appealability may issue under

28 U.S.C. § 2253 “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The court must either issue a certificate of

appealability indicating which issues satisfy the required showing or must state the reasons why

such a certificate should not issue. See Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). Where the petition is dismissed

on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability “should issue if the prisoner can show: (1)

‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its

procedural ruling’; and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition

states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right.’” Morris v. Woodford, 229 F.3d 775,

780 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 1604 (2000)). 

For the reasons set forth above, the court finds that issuance of a certificate of appealability is not

warranted in this case. 

3

Case 2:13-cv-01349-CMK Document 29 Filed 09/17/15 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. This action is dismissed; 

2. Petitioner’s motion for a stay-and-abeyance order (Doc. 26) is denied; 

3. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability; and

4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment and close this file. 

DATED: September 17, 2015

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4

Case 2:13-cv-01349-CMK Document 29 Filed 09/17/15 Page 4 of 4