Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00448/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00448-4/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 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DAMON J. LYNCH, JR., 

Petitioner, 

v. 

SUZANNE M. PEERY, 

Respondent. 

No. 2:16-cv-0448 AC P 

ORDER 

 Petitioner seeks habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and has consented to 

the jurisdiction of the undersigned Magistrate Judge for all purposes.1

 See ECF Nos. 1, 5. In 

response to this court’s orders filed April 13, 2016 (ECF No. 6), and June 10, 2016 (ECF No. 8), 

petitioner now requests that this habeas corpus action be stayed and held in abeyance until 

petitioner exhausts his state court remedies. See ECF No. 10. 

 Upon initial review of the petition, this court had recommended dismissal without 

prejudice due to petitioner’s clear failure to exhaust his state court remedies. See ECF No. 4. 

The court later reconsidered, based on the Ninth Circuit’s ruling in Mena v. Long, 813 F.3d 907 

(9th Cir., Feb. 17, 2016). Pursuant to Mena, petitioner was informed of the following 

requirements for obtaining a stay of his fully unexhausted petition pending the exhaustion of his 

 

1

 As a result of petitioner’s consent to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge, this case is no 

longer referred to the District Judge, as previously noted by this court. See ECF No. 6 at 1-2. 

Case 2:16-cv-00448-AC Document 11 Filed 11/08/16 Page 1 of 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 

2

state court remedies, ECF No. 6 at 2: 

Petitioner may . . . file a motion to stay and hold in abeyance this 

action upon demonstration that “‘petitioner had good cause for his 

failure to exhaust, his unexhausted claims are potentially 

meritorious, and there is no indication that the petitioner engaged in 

intentionally dilatory litigation tactics.’” Mena v. Long, 813 F.3d at 

910 (quoting Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. [269] at 278 [(2005)]). 

 In response, petitioner filed the instant one-paragraph stay request that provides in full, 

ECF No. 10 at 1: 

If all state remedies have not been exhausted, then I Damon J. 

Lynch Jr. would like to request a motion to stay and hold in 

abeyance this action until all state remedies are exhausted. 

However if all state remedies have been exhausted then I’d like to 

proceed with this action. I accept Judge Claire as my Judge. 

Attached is a copy of the December 8, 2015 decision of the California Court of Appeal, Third 

District, dismissing as moot petitioner’s appeal on his claim that the trial court abused its 

discretion when it denied petitioner’s request to be released on his own recognizance pending 

sentencing pursuant to People v. Cruz (1988) 44 Cal. 3d 1247. See ECF No. 10 at 2-7. 

Petitioner previously informed this court of the state Court of Appeal’s dismissal of his 

appeal. See ECF No. 1 at 2. Moreover, the substance of this appeal is not relevant to the claims 

set forth in the pending federal petition.2 

 Exhaustion of state court remedies is a prerequisite for granting a federal petition for writ 

of habeas corpus. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). Petitioner has failed to demonstrate good cause 

for his failure to exhaust his claims before filing the instant federal petition, or his failure to make 

any progress in exhausting his claims after filing his petition, despite direction by the court. 

Mena, 813 F.3d at 910. While this court is unable to assess, on the present record, the potential 

merit of petitioner’s federal claims, petitioner’s recent filing indicates that he has been dilatory in 

pursuing this action, whether or not the delay was intentional. Id. The court construes these 

 

2

 Petitioner’s petition identifies the following four claims: (1) “Conviction obtained by use of 

coerced confession, evidence[] obtained by coercion.” (2) “Conviction obtained by violation of 

the privilege against self-incrimination.” (3) “Conviction obtained by the unconstitutional failure 

to disclose to the jury evidence favorable to the defendant.” (4) “Conviction obtained by 

rewording/altering the pre-written CalCrim 1650 jury instructions.” See ECF No. 1 at 4-5. 

Case 2:16-cv-00448-AC Document 11 Filed 11/08/16 Page 2 of 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 

3

matters as a failure to prosecute this action and failure to comply with an order of this court. So 

construed, the court is required to dismiss this action without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b), 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. This action is dismissed without prejudice.3 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 

2. The Clerk of Court is directed to note on the docket that this case is no longer referred 

to the District Judge, effective March 28, 2016 (see ECF No. 5), and to close this case. 

DATED: November 8, 2016 

 

3

 Petitioner is informed that there is a one-year statute of limitations for filing a federal habeas 

petition which runs, inter alia, from “the date on which the judgment became final by the 

conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review.” 28 U.S.C. § 

2244(d)(1)(A). This limitations period is statutorily tolled during the time in which “a properly 

filed application for State post-conviction or other collateral review with respect to the pertinent 

judgment or claim is pending . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2). 

Case 2:16-cv-00448-AC Document 11 Filed 11/08/16 Page 3 of 3