Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-00007/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-00007-3/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

 Petitioner was previously advised that this action may not be used to challenge his 1987 1

and 1994 prior convictions. In case number CIV S-96-0766 GEB GGH P, petitioner claimed that

his 1987 sentence was miscalculated and that the sentence imposed for his 1994 conviction

should be reduced. That petition was denied on October 31, 1997, and on September 15, 2000,

the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the judgment.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THOMAS EUGENE MOORE,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-02-0007 DFL DAD P

vs.

A.A. LAMARQUE, et al., ORDER AND

Respondents. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a fourth amended petition for

a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner challenges his 2001 Sacramento

County Superior Court judgement of conviction for robbery and sentence imposed under the 

Three Strikes law. 

1

On March 30, 2004, petitioner’s fourth amended petition was held in abeyance

and this action was stayed to allow petitioner to return to state court to exhaust state remedies

with respect to nine additional claims he wished to present in this action. Petitioner was ordered

Case 2:02-cv-00007-JAM-DAD Document 61 Filed 03/12/07 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 Petitioner was also instructed that no further status reports need be filed with the court. 2

2

to file status reports with this court every two months regarding the status of his exhaustion

petition. On June 1, 2006, following the filing of petitioner’s thirteenth status report, the court

ordered petitioner to file a statement demonstrating that this action should continue to be stayed

in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005). The court 2

noted that this action had been stayed for over two years and that petitioner had not progressed

with respect to exhaustion beyond the filing of a defective state habeas petition with the

Sacramento County Superior Court. In that state petition, petitioner raised forty-seven claims. 

(Pet’r Statement, Ex. F.) On July 13, 2006, this court granted petitioner an extension of time to

file his statement. On August 1, 2006, the court granted petitioner a second extension of time. 

Petitioner filed his statement in response to the court’s June 1, 2006 order on August 23, 2006. 

Petitioner now contends that he was not able to file his exhaustion petition with

the Sacramento County Superior Court until October 21, 2005, because his appellate counsel did

not provide him with copies of the reporter’s and clerk’s transcripts on appeal until April of 2003

and because it took time for petitioner and his “inmate legal helpers” to conduct research and

develop the claims. (Id. at 3.) Petitioner was denied relief with respect to his Superior Court

petition on November 29, 2005. (Id., Ex. F.) Relief was denied on the basis that the petition

was untimely and presented claims that were previously rejected, should have been raised on

appeal and lacked merit. (Id., Ex. F.) Currently, petitioner has two state habeas petitions that are

pending. In this regard, petitioner filed a habeas petition with the Sacramento County Superior

Court on June 22, 2006, and another habeas petition with the California Supreme Court on July

31, 2006. (Id., Ex.s G and H.) In his petition before the California Supreme Court, petitioner

raises at least fifty-nine claims. (Id., Ex. H.) On August 13, 2005, petitioner filed a document

styled, “First Supplemental Continuance To The Petition For Writ Of Habeas Corpus,”

requesting that the California Supreme Court grant him leave to add seven more claims and ten

Case 2:02-cv-00007-JAM-DAD Document 61 Filed 03/12/07 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

 This court has not been apprised by petitioner of such action as of the date of this order. 3

 The court also notes that petitioner has filed several motions in both the state and 4

federal courts seeking to obtain transcripts and documents that he alleges are missing. See Order,

filed 6/1/06, at 1-2. All such motions have been rejected by the courts.

 At petitioner’s request, this action was originally stayed and held in abeyance pending 5

exhaustion prior to the decision in Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 277 (2005). Accordingly, this

is the first opportunity this court has had to examine the limitations on the stay and abeyance

procedure announced in Rhines in the context of petitioner’s case.

3

more sub-claims to the petition pending before that court. (Id. at 7.) With respect to the merits

of his still unexhausted claims, petitioner makes the following conclusory representations: 

“These unexhausted claims are also meritorious and are also highly constitutional errors that had

they not occurred, the outcome of the petitioner’s trial and the sentencing would have been

different. [sic] Thus, these claims are meritorious.” (Id. at 5.) Petitioner requests that this action

remain stayed because he anticipates a decision from the California Supreme Court before

January 1, 2007. (Id. at 6.) Lastly, petitioner argues that prison officials “committed outrageous 3

governmental misconduct by maliciously confiscating all of the petitioner’s evidentiary habeas

corpus exhibits, reporter’s and clerk’s transcripts . . . .” (Id. at 8.) Apparently, the documents

referred to by petitioner were confiscated when he was placed in administrative segregation on

October 22, 2005, and petitioner now contends that several documents are missing and that those

documents would prove his factual innocence. (Id. at 8-10.) Petitioner, however, does not

describe the missing documents nor does he explain how those documents, in fact, would prove

his innocence.

4

The court has considered petitioner’s response to the June 1, 2006 order and is not

persuaded that this action should remain stayed any longer. The United States Supreme Court

has affirmed the district court’s discretion to stay a federal habeas proceeding to allow a

petitioner to present unexhausted claims to the state court where there is good cause for the

petitioner’s failure to exhaust all claims in state court before filing a federal habeas petition. 

Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 277 (2005) ; see also Anthony v. Cambra, 236 F.3d 568, 575 5

Case 2:02-cv-00007-JAM-DAD Document 61 Filed 03/12/07 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

 Should petitioner exhaust state court remedies with respect to additional claims, he may 6

file and serve a motion requesting leave to amend along with his proposed fifth amended

petition. Petitioner is cautioned, however, that leave to amend is not granted automatically and,

if challenged, petitioner may be required to establish that the new claims relate back to and share

a common core of operative facts with the claims in his fourth amended petition. See Mayle v.

Felix, 545 U.S. 644 (2005).

4

(9th Cir. 2000) (authorizing district courts to stay fully exhausted federal petitions pending

exhaustion of other claims); Calderon v. United States Dist. Court (Taylor), 134 F.3d 981, 987-

88 (9th Cir. 1998). This discretion to issue a stay extends to mixed petitions. Jackson v. Roe,

425 F.3d 654, 660 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Rhines concluded that a district court has discretion to stay a

mixed petition to allow a petitioner time to return to state court to present unexhausted claims.”). 

The Supreme Court cautioned, however, that “stay and abeyance should be available only in

limited circumstances” and that a stay “is only appropriate when the district court determines

there is good cause for the petitioner’s failure to exhaust his claims first in state court.” 544 U.S.

at 277. Even if a petitioner shows good cause, the district court should not grant a stay if the

unexhausted claims are plainly meritless. Id. Finally, federal proceedings may not be stayed

indefinitely, and reasonable time limits must be imposed on a petitioner’s return to state court to

exhaust additional claims. Id. at 277-78.

Here, petitioner has still failed to exhaust his claims even though this action was

stayed almost three years ago. This period of time exceeds reasonable time limits for the stay of

this action and reflects that petitioner has failed to be diligent in exhausting state court remedies. 

Although petitioner filed a habeas petition with the California Supreme Court in July of 2006, he

has since requested leave from that court to add even additional claims which will further delay

the disposition of his petition. This court also finds that petitioner has failed to demonstrate that

his unexhausted claims are potentially meritorious. Petitioner merely asserts that his claims have

merit and attaches a copy of his state habeas petitions. Such a showing is inadequate. In light of

the Supreme Court’s admonition in Rhines v. Weber, the court cannot continue to stay this action

indefinitely. Therefore, the stay should be lifted.6

Case 2:02-cv-00007-JAM-DAD Document 61 Filed 03/12/07 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

5

On July 31, 2006, petitioner filed a motion for the appointment of counsel. For

the reasons set forth in the court’s previous orders denying petitioner’s requests for counsel, the

motion will be denied. See Orders, filed 6/6/02 and 9/22/03.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s July 31, 2006 motion

for the appointment of counsel is denied.

Also, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the stay of this action be lifted and

that this case be administratively opened.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's

Findings and Recommendations.” Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: March 12, 2007.

DAD:4

moor0007.liftsty

Case 2:02-cv-00007-JAM-DAD Document 61 Filed 03/12/07 Page 5 of 5