Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-03147/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-03147-19/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 

MACK A. WEST, JR., 

Petitioner, 

v. 

KATHLEEN DICKINSON, 

Respondent. 

No. 2:09-cv-03147 KJM AC 

ORDER 

Petitioner, a state prisoner, proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis with a third amended 

petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. ECF No. 83. Respondent 

has answered the petition. ECF No. 89. Three motions are pending. On April 1, 2013, petitioner 

filed an application for a stay and abeyance, seeking leave to return to state court to exhaust state 

court remedies on additional claims. ECF No. 101. On May 31, 2013, petitioner filed a motion 

for leave to conduct discovery. ECF No. 105. On June 21, 2013, petitioner filed a motion for a 

thirty day extension of time to amend and/or supplement his petition, to exhaust state court 

remedies, and to file a traverse. ECF No. 106. 

Petitioner’s third amended petition presents ten grounds for relief: 

Ground One: Trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance in regard to petitioner’s plea 

bargain; 

Ground Two: The plea bargain failed to establish an adequate factual basis; 

Case 2:09-cv-03147-JKS Document 110 Filed 07/17/13 Page 1 of 7
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

Ground Three: The trial court violated petitioner’s constitutional rights by not ordering a 

competency evaluation based on changed circumstances; 

Ground Four: The waiver of jury trial was structural error; 

Ground Five: Trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance at the change of plea hearing; 

Ground Six: The trial court’s failure to record proceedings violated petitioner’s due 

process rights; 

Ground Seven: The prosecutor committed prejudicial misconduct by suppressing material 

evidence of petitioner’s lack of capacity; 

Ground Eight: Trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by misrepresenting 

petitioner’s request to withdraw his no contest plea; 

Ground Nine: The trial court failed to award petitioner presentence custody credits; 

Ground Ten: Trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance in failing to seek a certificate 

of probable cause and in failing to develop an adequate record for appellate review. 

Application for Stay and Abeyance

In the first-filed of the instant motions, petitioner requests a stay to permit exhaustion of 

two claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel that were, at the time of the request, 

pending before the California Supreme Court. Plaintiff did not specify the legal basis for the 

requested stay and abeyance. Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 277 (2005) authorizes the district 

court to stay for good cause petitions that contain both exhausted and unexhausted claims, in 

order to permit further exhaustion. Rhines has no application here, because the third amended 

petition is not a mixed petition. A district court may also stay a petition containing only 

exhausted claims, with the intention that the additional claims will be added by amendment after 

exhaustion. Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2003). The Kelly approach, however, “does 

nothing to protect a petitioner’s unexhausted claims from untimeliness . . .” King v. Ryan, 564 

F.3d 1133, 1141 (9th Cir. 2009). 

In his more recently filed motion for an extension of time, petitioner represents that his 

previously-pending state court claims have been denied as untimely by the California Supreme 

Court and are now ready to be presented to this court. ECF No. 106 at 3. Because the appellate 

Case 2:09-cv-03147-JKS Document 110 Filed 07/17/13 Page 2 of 7
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

ineffective assistance claims are now exhausted, the motion for a stay and abeyance pending their 

exhaustion will be denied as moot. 

Motion for Leave to Conduct Discovery

Petitioner has filed a motion for leave to conduct discovery under Rule 6 of the Rules 

Governing Section 2254 Cases. Petitioner asserts that he needs discovery material from his trial 

counsel, and, in particular, documents from his client file including: 

doctor’s reports; his entire jailhouse medical records; all evidence 

in his case; the D.A. witness list/the plea agreement papers; his file 

on his case; all his witness (list); his investigator file on his case; all 

new evidence the investigator obtained; trial counsel contract he 

made with petitioner father/ conservator; [and] any and everything 

related to his case [sic]. 

ECF No. 105-4 at 2. Petitioner states that he previously requested his client file from trial counsel 

as early as May 2007 and that he has diligently pursued the matter, but that trial counsel is falsely 

claiming the client file was already delivered to petitioner. Id. at 6-8. 

 A habeas petitioner, unlike the usual civil litigant in federal court, is not entitled to 

discovery as a matter of course. Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899, 904 (1997). Rather, under the 

Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases: 

(a) Leave of Court Required. A judge may, for good cause, 

authorize a party to conduct discovery under the Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure and may limit the extent of discovery. [....] 

(b) Requesting Discovery. A party requesting discovery must 

provide reasons for the request. The request must also include 

any proposed interrogatories and requests for admission, and 

must specify any requested documents. 

Rule 6, Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Proceedings. 

 “Good cause” for discovery under Rule 6 exists “where specific allegations before the 

court show reason to believe that the petitioner may, if the facts are fully developed, be able to 

demonstrate that he is... entitled to relief[.]” Bracy, 520 U.S. 899, 908-09 (1997) (quoting Harris 

v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286, 300 (1969)). A request for discovery under Rule 6 must be supported by 

specific factual detail. See id.; Rich v. Calderon, 187 F.3d 1064, 1067 (9th Cir. 1999); Murphy v. 

Johnson, 205 F.3d 809, 814 (5th Cir. 2000) (“[A] petitioner’s factual allegations must be specific, 

Case 2:09-cv-03147-JKS Document 110 Filed 07/17/13 Page 3 of 7
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 

4

as opposed to merely speculative or conclusory, to justify discovery under Rule 6.”). 

Petitioner has attached voluminous proposed discovery requests directed to the Solano 

County Main Jail (Id. at 1-8), to Beth Robbins, Deputy Clerk at the California Court of Appeal 

(Id. at 9-16), to trial counsel Carl Spieckerman (Id. at 17-31), to Rene A. Chacon (Id. at 32-34), to 

William Pendergast (Id. at 35-39), to the State Bar of California (Id. at 40-50), and to various 

California state prisons and facilities (Id. at 50-110). Petitioner asserts that he needs to conduct 

the proposed discovery “to support his actual innocence claim.” ECF No. 105-2 at 1, 8, 9. The 

operative petition, however, does not include a claim of actual innocence. Moreover, although 

petitioner describes at length his previous attempts to obtain his client file from his attorney, he 

fails to provide any specific allegations setting forth how the requested materials would support 

any of his claims in this habeas proceeding. Petitioner’s conclusory allegations fail to show that 

he could potentially demonstrate that he is entitled to relief if allowed to conduct discovery and 

further develop the facts. See Bracy, 520 U.S. at 908−09. 

Under these circumstances, the motion for leave to conduct discovery will be denied. The 

denial is without prejudice to a renewed motion for discovery if and when any of petitioner’s 

ineffective assistance of trial counsel claims survive review under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). Only in 

that case could this court consider evidence that was not before the state court when it adjudicated 

the claims. See Cullen v. Pinholster, 131 S. Ct. 1388, 1398 (2011); see also id. at 1412 (Breyer, 

J., concurring) (recognizing that where § 2254(d) is satisfied, evidence produced for the first time 

in federal court may be considered). Discovery is of no use to petitioner unless this court can 

consider the evidence discovered. Wood v. Ryan, 693 F.3d 1104, 1122 (9th Cir. 2012) (discovery 

not available where § 2254(d) bars claim). 

Motion for Extension of Time 

On June 21, 2013, petitioner requested a thirty day extension of time “to amend or 

supplement his habeas corpus in this court” and “to file another state habeas corpus to finish 

exhausting two meritorious claims. . . .” ECF No. 106 at 1.1

 He also explains that his failure to 

 

1

 Elsewhere in the document petitioner refers to three additional claims that require exhaustion. 

Id. at 3. 

Case 2:09-cv-03147-JKS Document 110 Filed 07/17/13 Page 4 of 7
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 

5

timely file a traverse was related to a recent transfer which separated him from his legal materials. 

Id. 

To the extent that petitioner seeks leave to amend the petition to add recently-exhausted 

claims, see id. at 3,2 the motion is inadequately supported and will be denied on that basis. 

However, petitioner will be granted thirty days to file a motion for leave to amend, which must be 

accompanied by the proposed Fourth Amended Complaint. Petitioner is advised to attach to the 

complaint documentation demonstrating that the newly-added claims have been exhausted. 

Petitioner is further advised that his motion for leave to amend must explain why the newlyexhausted claims are not time-barred. 

The one year statute of limitations for federal habeas, 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1), applies on a 

claim-by-claim basis. Mardesich v. Cate, 668 F.3d 1164, 1166 (9th Cir. 2012). In general, 

claims must be filed within one year after a conviction becomes final upon conclusion or direct 

review. See Bowen v. Roe, 188 F.3d 1157, 1158-59 (9th Cir. 1999). The time during which a 

“properly filed” application for state court relief is pending does not count against the limitations 

period. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2); Artuz v, Bennett, 531 U.S. 4, 8 (2000). However, an exhaustion 

petition that is denied by the state court as untimely is not “properly filed” and does not toll the 

limitations period. Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408 (2005); Bonner v. Carey, 425 F.3d 1145, 

1149 (9th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 856 (2006). The pendency of a federal petition does 

not toll the limitations period. Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167 (2001). Amendments to a 

timely-filed habeas petition are themselves timely only if they “relate back” to the claims of the 

pending petition. See Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644 (2005). Relation back requires a “common 

core of operative facts.” King, 564 F.3d at 1141 (citing Mayle, 545 U.S. at 659). “[A] new claim 

does not ‘relate back’ to the filing of an exhausted petition simply because it arises from ‘the 

same trial, conviction, or sentence.” Id. (citing Mayle, 545 U.S. at 662-64). Claims that are timebarred may not be added by amendment. King, 564 F.3d at 1141. 

 

2

 “In the meantime the two claims that the California Supreme Court have denied as untimely is 

now ready to be added to petitioner habeas corpus in this court, by means of amendment or 

supplemental pleading . . .” Id.

Case 2:09-cv-03147-JKS Document 110 Filed 07/17/13 Page 5 of 7
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 

6

To the extent that petitioner seeks an extension of time to file additional unexhausted 

claims in state court, petitioner is addressing his request to the wrong court. This court has no 

authority to permit or withhold permission for petitioner to do anything in state court, or to extend 

any state court deadlines. If petitioner means that he wishes this court to stay further proceedings 

on the federal petition until he has exhausted still more new claims, the request will be denied. 

Petitioner has provided no grounds for a stay. He has not described his additional claims, 

explained why they were not exhausted earlier, or explained why they would not be time-barred 

and/or procedurally barred upon exhaustion. Accordingly, there is no basis for this court’s 

exercise of its discretion to stay proceedings pending further exhaustion. See Kelly, 315 F.3d at 

1070; King, 564 F.3d at 1141. 

Substitution of Respondent 

Petitioner is currently housed at Salinas Valley State Prison in Soledad, California, in the 

custody of Warden Randy Grounds. See ECF No. 101 at 2; ECF No. 102 at 1. Accordingly, 

Randy Grounds should be substituted as the appropriate respondent in this case. 

Conclusion 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 

1. Petitioner’s motion for stay and abeyance (ECF No. 101) is DENIED as moot; 

2. Petitioner’s motion for leave to conduct discovery (ECF No. 105) is DENIED without 

prejudice to renewal at a later stage in the proceedings; 

3. Petitioner’s motion for a thirty day extension of time to amend or supplement his 

petition and to exhaust state court remedies (ECF No. 106) is DENIED; 

4. Petitioner is granted thirty days from the date of this order in which to file and serve a 

motion to amend to add newly-exhausted claims. The motion must be accompanied 

by a proposed Fourth Amended Complaint and should address the timeliness of the 

newly-added claims; 

5. The previous deadline for the traverse is vacated and shall be reset following 

adjudication of the motion to amend; 

//// 

Case 2:09-cv-03147-JKS Document 110 Filed 07/17/13 Page 6 of 7
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 

7

6. The Clerk of Court shall substitute Warden Randy Grounds as the appropriate 

respondent in this case. 

DATED: July 16, 2013 

 

 ___________________________________ 

 ALLISON CLAIRE 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

AC:ls//west3147.111.misc 

Case 2:09-cv-03147-JKS Document 110 Filed 07/17/13 Page 7 of 7