Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02640/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02640-0/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BILLY JEROME LACEY,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-07-2640 LEW GGH P

vs.

M. C. KRAMER, Warden, et al.,

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 together with a request to proceed in forma pauperis

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Petitioner has submitted a declaration that makes the showing

required by § 1915(a). Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted. 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

Petitioner challenges his conviction for possession of cocaine for sale to which he

was sentenced to a state prison term of “4 years double w/ 85%.” Form petition, p. 1. Petitioner

sets forth eight grounds for his challenge. 

The exhaustion of state court remedies is a prerequisite to the granting of a

petition for writ of habeas corpus. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). If exhaustion is to be waived, it must

Case 2:07-cv-02640-VAP Document 5 Filed 01/11/08 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

 A petition may be denied on the merits without exhaustion of state court remedies. 28 1

U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2). 

2

be waived explicitly by respondent’s counsel. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(3). A waiver of exhaustion, 1

thus, may not be implied or inferred. A petitioner satisfies the exhaustion requirement by

providing the highest state court with a full and fair opportunity to consider all claims before

presenting them to the federal court. Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276 (1971); Middleton v.

Cupp, 768 F.2d 1083, 1086 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 478 U.S. 1021 (1986). 

After reviewing the petition for habeas corpus, the court finds that petitioner,

while he has apparently exhausted at least two of his claims on direct appeal, has failed to

exhaust state court remedies as to the remainder of his claims because he expressly states that his

habeas petition to the state supreme court is still pending. Form petition, p. 3. Thus, it appears

that petitioner has filed a mixed petition. In Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 416, 125 S.Ct.

1807, 1813 (2005), the Supreme Court approved the filing of “protective petitions”:

Finally, petitioner challenges the fairness of our interpretation. He claims that a

“petitioner trying in good faith to exhaust state remedies may litigate in state court

for years only to find out at the end that he was never ‘properly filed,’” and thus

that his federal habeas petition is time barred. Brief for Petition 30. A prisoner

seeking post conviction relief might avoid this predicament, however, by filing a

“protective” petition in federal court and asking the federal court to stay and abey

the federal habeas proceedings until state remedies are exhausted. See Rhines v.

Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 125 S.Ct. 1528, 1531, 161 L.Ed.2d 440 (2005). A

petitioner’s reasonable confusion about whether a state filing would be timely will

ordinarily constitute “good cause” for him to file in federal court.

Pace, 544 U.S. at 416, 125 S.Ct. at 1813.

Under Rhines v. Weber, supra, 544 U.S. 269, 125 S.Ct. 1528, district courts have

discretion to hold mixed petition in abeyance pending exhaustion of unexhausted claims. 

However, the United States Supreme Court found that a stay and abeyance of a mixed federal

petition should be available only in the limited circumstance that good cause is shown for a

failure to have first exhausted the claims in state court, that the claim or claims at issue

potentially have merit and that there has been no indication that petitioner has been intentionally

Case 2:07-cv-02640-VAP Document 5 Filed 01/11/08 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

 Petitioner is cautioned that the habeas corpus statute imposes a one year statute of 2

limitations for filing non-capital habeas corpus petitions in federal court. In most cases, the one

year period will start to run on the date on which the state court judgment became final by the

conclusion of direct review or the expiration of time for seeking direct review, although the

statute of limitations is tolled while a properly filed application for state post-conviction or other

collateral review is pending. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). 

3

dilatory in pursuing the litigation. Rhines, supra, at 277-78, 125 S. Ct. at 1535. 

Thus, petitioner must expressly set forth his exhausted and unexhausted claims

and file a motion to stay and abey his petition pending exhaustion if he wishes to proceed upon

all the grounds he has set forth in his petition and must show good cause for having failed to

exhaust the as-yet unexhausted claims prior to filing the instant petition, within thirty days. 

Should he fail to do so the court must recommend dismissal of the petition as unexhausted.2

Upon the filing of petitioner’s motion for a stay and abeyance, respondent must file and serve any

opposition thereto within thirty days.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis; 

2. Petitioner is granted thirty days of the filed date of this order to file a motion

for stay and abeyance of this mixed petition, as set forth above; failure to do so will result in the

court’s recommending dismissal of the pending petition on grounds of non-exhaustion;

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order together with a

copy of the petition filed in the instant case on the Attorney General of the State of California;

and 

4. Should petitioner file a timely motion to stay and abey the instant petition,

respondent, within thirty days thereafter, must file any opposition thereto.

DATED: 01/11/08 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009

lace2640.ord

Case 2:07-cv-02640-VAP Document 5 Filed 01/11/08 Page 3 of 3