Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-00909/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-00909-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Giselle Matteson
Respondent
Lai Fou Saechao
Petitioner

Document Text:

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

LAI FOU SAECHAO,

Petitioner,

v.

GISELLE MATTESON,

Respondent.

No. 2:23-cv-00909-DAD-DB (HC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING 

PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR A STAY 

UNDER RHINES v. WEBER, AND 

GRANTING MOTION FOR A STAY AND 

ABEYANCE UNDER KELLY v. SMALL

(Doc. Nos. 7, 8, 11, 14)

Petitioner Lai Fou Saechao is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for a writ 

of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On August 29, 2023, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, 

recommending that petitioner’s amended motion for a stay and abeyance pursuant to the decision 

in Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005) (Doc. No. 7) be denied. (Doc. No. 8.) However, shortly 

thereafter, on September 18, 2023, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, 

recommending that petitioner’s motion for a stay and abeyance pursuant to the decision in Kelly 

v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2002), overruled on other grounds by Robbins v. Carrey, 481 

F.3d 1143 (9th Cir. 2007) (Doc. No. 11), be granted. (Doc. No. 14.) Both sets of findings and 

recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that any objections were to be 

filed within twenty-one (21) days (Doc. No. 8 at 6), or fourteen (14) days in the latter instance

Case 2:23-cv-00909-DC-SCR Document 16 Filed 11/27/23 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

27

28

2

(Doc. No. 14 at 4), from the date of service of those findings and recommendations. On 

September 15, 2023, petitioner filed timely objections to the first set of findings and 

recommendations. (Doc. No. 13.) No objections to the September 18, 2023 findings and 

recommendations have been filed, and the time in which to do so has now passed.

In the August 29, 2023 findings and recommendations, the magistrate judge found that the 

three claims presented in the operative petition (Doc. No. 6) before this court—namely, (1) 

insufficient evidence to support a felony murder conviction, (2) instructional error in failing to 

instruct on theft as the underlying felony, and (3) violation of Double Jeopardy (id. at 2–3)—had 

all been exhausted in state court. (Doc. No. 8 at 2 and n.1.) This conclusion was drawn from the 

California Supreme Court’s denial of the petitioner’s petition for review in May 2022. (Id. at 2, 

n.1) (citing Doc. No. 1 at 2–3). The magistrate judge also concluded, however, that petitioner had 

failed to demonstrate good cause for his failure to previously exhaust the three new claims which 

he now sought to exhaust in state court—specifically, (1) ineffective assistance of counsel; (2) 

prosecutorial misconduct; and (3) newly discovered evidence—and therefore petitioner had not 

established that he was entitled to a stay and abeyance of these federal habeas proceedings under 

Rhines.

1

 (Doc. No. 8 at 3–5.) Accordingly, it was recommended that petitioner’s May 31, 2023 

amended motion for a Rhines stay be denied. (Id. at 4–5.) In his objections to those findings and 

recommendations, petitioner argues that any delay in exhausting his new claims—claims that 

were not asserted in his pending federal habeas petition—was because of his pro se status and his 

lack of prison law library access during the COVID-19 pandemic. (Doc. No. 13 at 2.) Petitioner 

also advised the court that (1) an order had been issued, presumably by the Sacramento County 

Superior Court, addressing his unexhausted claims; (2) he had a petition for resentencing pending 

before the state appellate court; and (3) he now sought, in the alternative, a stay under Kelly. (Id.)

/////

1

 In those findings and recommendations, the potential availability of a stay and abeyance under 

Kelly was pointed out to petitioner. (Doc. No. 8 at 4, n. 2.) The undersigned observes that when 

he initiated this action, petitioner appears to have alleged that he had begun the process of 

exhausting his new claims in state court by filing a habeas petition in the Sacramento County 

Superior Court on May 9, 2023 asserting those new claims. (Doc. No. 1 at 4.)

Case 2:23-cv-00909-DC-SCR Document 16 Filed 11/27/23 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

27

28

3

Petitioner’s objections provide no basis upon which to question the conclusion reached in 

the August 29, 2023 findings and recommendations. It has been recognized that a stay of a 

habeas petition containing both exhausted and non-exhausted claims may be granted if a 

petitioner demonstrates: (1) good cause for the failure to previously exhaust the claims in state 

court; (2) the claims at issue potentially have merit, and (3) petitioner has been diligent in 

pursuing relief. Rhines, 544 U.S. at 277–78; see also Mena v. Long, 813 F.3d 907, 910–12 (9th 

Cir. 2016) (extending the Rhines stay and abeyance procedure to federal habeas petitions that are 

wholly unexhausted). Here, however, the operative petition before this federal habeas court 

contains only exhausted claims and petitioner has failed to make any showing of good cause for 

his failure to previously exhaust his new claims, that those new claims potentially have merit,

2

or 

that he has been diligent in pursuing relief as to those new claims. Accordingly, the undersigned 

will adopt the August 29, 2023 findings and recommendations and deny petitioner’s amended 

motion for a stay and abeyance under Rhines. 

In the September 18, 2023 findings and recommendations, the magistrate judge 

recommended that petitioner’s motion for a stay of these federal habeas proceedings while he 

exhausted his unexhausted claims in state court under Kelly be granted. (Doc. No. 14 at 2–3.) 

The magistrate judge warned petitioner, however, that the granting of a stay under Kelly does not 

toll the applicable AEDPA statute of limitations. (Id. at 2.) Rather, in order to be allowed to 

amend his pending federal habeas petition to add his new claims following their exhaustion in 

state court, petitioner would at that time need to either show that any newly exhausted claims 

were then timely or that they related back to his original petition in which he had asserted his 

fully exhausted claims. (Id. at 2–3.) As noted above, no objections to the September 18, 2023 

/////

2 This court is unable to assess whether petitioner’s new claims potentially have merit because he 

has merely listed them as: “1. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel 2. Prosecutorial Misconduct 3. 

Newly Discovered Evidence.” (Doc. No. 7 at 2; see also Doc. No. 13 at 2.) In his objections,

petitioner indicated he had attached a copy of a habeas petition (Doc. No. 13 at 2), presumably 

the one he filed in the Sacramento County Superior Court, which may have provided some 

information regarding the nature of his new, unexhausted claims. However, no such petition was 

in fact attached to that filing. 

Case 2:23-cv-00909-DC-SCR Document 16 Filed 11/27/23 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

27

28

4

findings and recommendations have been filed, and the time to do so has passed.3 Accordingly, 

the court will adopt those findings and recommendations as well.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a 

de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings 

and recommendations filed on August 29, 2023, and those filed on September 18, 2023, to be 

supported by the record and proper analysis. 

Accordingly,

1. The findings and recommendations issued on August 29, 2023 (Doc. No. 8) are 

adopted in full;

2. Petitioner’s amended motion for a stay and abeyance under Rhines (Doc. No. 7) is 

denied;

3. The findings and recommendations issued on September 18, 2023 (Doc. No. 14) 

are adopted in full;

4. Petitioner’s motion for a stay under Kelly (Doc. No. 11) is granted;

5. This action is stayed pursuant to Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2003), 

overruled on other grounds by Robbins v. Carrey, 481 F.3d 1143 (9th Cir. 2007);

6. Petitioner is directed to file a status report within ninety (90) days of the date of 

entry of this order advising the court the status of the state court proceedings, and 

shall file an additional status report every ninety (90) days thereafter; and

7. Within thirty (30) days after the state court issues a final order resolving the 

unexhausted claims, petitioner shall file a motion to lift the stay and a motion to 

amend his federal petition with an amended habeas petition setting forth all 

3

 On November 13, 2023, petitioner filed an “Initial Status Report” advising that he had filed a 

habeas petition with the California Court of Appeal asserting claims of ineffective assistance of 

both his trial and appellate counsel, prosecutorial misconduct, and newly discovered evidence. 

(Doc. No. 15 at 1.) Petitioner is again advised that the AEDPA statute of limitations has not been 

tolled by this order and that he should exhaust his unexhausted new claims and move to amend 

his federal petition immediately following exhaustion of those claims if he still wishes to seek to 

have them considered by this federal habeas court. If proceeding with those new claims, 

petitioner must be prepared to make the required showing as described in the September 18, 2023 

findings and recommendations.

Case 2:23-cv-00909-DC-SCR Document 16 Filed 11/27/23 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

27

28

5

exhausted claims if he wishes to pursue those newly exhausted claims in this 

federal habeas action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 22, 2023 

DALE A. DROZD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:23-cv-00909-DC-SCR Document 16 Filed 11/27/23 Page 5 of 5