Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-05475/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-05475-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAY RAUL CAMPOS, 

Petitioner,

 vs.

GEORGE M. GALAZA, Warden,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 02-05475 CRB (PR)

ORDER

On November 19, 2002, Ray Raul Campos filed a pro se petition for a writ of

habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging a March 8, 2000 Three Strikes

sentence from the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of

Santa Clara. Campos also requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915, and a stay of his federal petition so that he could exhaust additional claims

pending on state habeas review and later move to amend the stayed petition to add the

newly-exhausted claims. He suggested that if he had to refile, his federal petition would

be time-barred.

Per order filed on February 20, 2003, the court granted Campos’s request to

proceed in forma pauperis, stayed the petition and administratively closed the case. The

court explained: “Nothing further will take place in this matter until Campos exhausts

the unexhausted claims, and, within 30 days of doing so, moves to reopen the case, lift

the court’s stay and amend the stayed petition to add the newly-exhausted claims.” Feb.

20, 2003 Order at 2.

Case 3:02-cv-05475-CRB Document 16 Filed 11/15/07 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

On November 10, 2003, Campos informed the court that, on October 15, 2003, 

the Supreme Court of California denied his last state petition for a writ of habeas corpus, 

and moved for appointment of counsel. 

Per order filed on December 16, 2003, the court denied Campos’ motion for

appointment of counsel without prejudice, and instructed him to file a motion to reopen

the case, lift the court’s stay and amend the stayed petition to add the newly-exhausted

claims within 30 days. Dec. 16, 2003 Order at 2.

Campos instead filed another motion for appointment of counsel and a motion for

a 90-day extension of time to file a motion to reopen the case and file a proposed First

Amended Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus containing all of his claims. He alleged

that he was in administrative segregation and could not seek assistance from fellow

prisoners who have been helping him with his case. 

Per order filed on February 4, 2004, the court again denied Campos’ renewed

motion for appointment of counsel, but granted his motion for a 90-day extension of

time. The court specifically instructed Campos to “file a motion to reopen the case and

a proposed First Amended Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by no later than June 1,

2004.” Feb. 4, 2004 Order at 2.

Nearly two months before his filing was due, Campos again filed a motion for

appointment of counsel alleging that he is “unable to employ counsel” and that he “has

no legal knowledge and very little experience or knowledge of the law.” 

Per order filed on May 5, 2004, the court again denied Campos’ third request for

appointment of counsel and afforded him "a final opportunity to file a motion to reopen

the case and a proposed First Amended Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by no later

than June 1, 2004." May 5, 2004 Order at 2. The court explained that "[n]either the

motion nor the petition need be complex. Campos need only allege that he moves to

reopen this matter because he has now exhausted all of his claims, and he need only list

Case 3:02-cv-05475-CRB Document 16 Filed 11/15/07 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

and briefly describe his claims for relief in the petition. An order to show cause to

respondent will likely issue if he does this much." Id. at 3. 

Campos filed nothing further until, on September 20, 2007, he filed a letter 

requesting that the court reopen the case in order for him to submit a First Amended

Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. The court will not entertain the request. Campos

must file a motion to reopen the case and show good cause as to why his untimeliness

should be excused. 

SO ORDERED.

DATED: Nov. 14, 2007 CHARLES R. BREYER

United States District Judge

Case 3:02-cv-05475-CRB Document 16 Filed 11/15/07 Page 3 of 3