Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01318/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01318-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
W. Muniz
Respondent
Winfred Lee Smith
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 

WINFRED LEE SMITH, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

W. MUNIZ, 

Respondent. 

No. 2:15-cv-1318-TLN-EFB P 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel on a petition for writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He moves to stay this case pending his exhaustion of 

claims in state court. ECF No. 13. Respondent has filed an opposition. ECF No. 14. For the 

reasons that follow, it is recommended that the motion be denied without prejudice. 

I. The Exhaustion Requirement 

A district court may not grant a petition for a writ of habeas corpus unless the petitioner 

has exhausted available state court remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). A state will not be deemed 

to have waived the exhaustion requirement unless the state, through counsel, expressly waives the 

requirement. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(3). 

Exhaustion of state remedies requires that petitioners fairly present federal claims to the 

highest state court, either on direct appeal or through state collateral proceedings, in order to give 

the highest state court “the opportunity to pass upon and correct alleged violations of its 

prisoners’ federal rights.” Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365 (1995) (some internal quotations 

Case 2:15-cv-01318-TLN-EFB Document 19 Filed 12/02/15 Page 1 of 4
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

omitted). “[A] state prisoner has not ‘fairly presented’ (and thus exhausted) his federal claims in 

state court unless he specifically indicated to that court that those claims were based on federal 

law.” Lyons v. Crawford, 232 F.3d 666, 668 (9th Cir. 2000), amended by 247 F.3d 904 (9th Cir. 

2000). “[T]he petitioner must make the federal basis of the claim explicit either by citing federal 

law or the decisions of federal courts, even if the federal basis is self-evident . . . .” Id. (citations 

omitted); see also Gray v. Netherland, 518 U.S. 152, 162-63 (1996) (“[A] claim for relief in 

habeas corpus must include reference to a specific federal constitutional guarantee, as well as a 

statement of the facts that entitle the petitioner to relief.”); Duncan, 513 U.S. at 365-66 (to 

exhaust a claim, a state court “must surely be alerted to the fact that the prisoners are asserting 

claims under the United States Constitution.”). 

In addition to identifying the federal basis of his claims in the state court, the petitioner 

must also fairly present the factual basis of the claim in order to exhaust it. Baldwin v. Reese, 541 

U.S. 27, 29 (2004); Robinson v. Schriro, 595 F.3d 1086, 1101 (9th Cir. 2010). “[T]he petitioner 

must . . . provide the state court with the operative facts, that is, ‘all of the facts necessary to give 

application to the constitutional principle upon which [the petitioner] relies.’” Davis v. Silva, 511 

F.3d 1005, 1009 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Daugharty v. Gladden, 257 F.2d 750, 758 (9th Cir. 

1958)). 

Where a federal habeas petitioner has failed to exhaust a claim in the state courts 

according to these principles, she may ask the federal court to stay its consideration of her petition 

while she returns to state court to complete exhaustion. Two procedures may be used in staying a 

petition – one provided for by Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2002) and the other by 

Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005). King v. Ryan, 564 F.3d 1133, 1138-41 (9th Cir. 2009). 

Under the Kelly procedure, the district court may stay a petition containing only exhausted claims 

and hold it in abeyance pending exhaustion of additional claims which may then be added to the 

petition through amendment. Kelly, 315 F.3d at 1070-71; King, 564 F.3d at 1135. If the federal 

petition contains both exhausted and unexhausted claims (a so-called “mixed” petition), a 

petitioner seeking a stay under Kelly must dismiss the unexhausted claims from the petition and 

seek to add them back in through amendment after exhausting them in state court. King, 564 F.3d 

Case 2:15-cv-01318-TLN-EFB Document 19 Filed 12/02/15 Page 2 of 4
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

at 1138-39. The previously unexhausted claims, once exhausted, must be added back into the 

federal petition within the statute of limitations provided for by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1), however. 

King, 564 F.3d at 1140-41. Under that section, a one-year limitation period for seeking federal 

habeas relief begins to run from the latest of the date the judgment became final on direct review, 

the date on which a state-created impediment to filing is removed, the date the United States 

Supreme Court makes a new rule retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review or the date 

on which the factual predicate of a claim could have been discovered through the exercise of due 

diligence. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d)(1). A federal habeas petition does not toll the limitations period 

under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2). Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167, 181-82 (2001). 

Under Rhines, a district court may stay a mixed petition in its entirety, without requiring 

dismissal of the unexhausted claims while the petitioner attempts to exhaust them in state court. 

King, 564 F.3d at 1139-40. Unlike the Kelly procedure, however, Rhines requires that the 

petitioner show good cause for failing to exhaust the claims in state court prior to filing the 

federal petition. Rhines, 544 U.S. at 277-78; King, 564 F.3d at 1139. In addition, a stay pursuant 

to Rhines is inappropriate where the unexhausted claims are “plainly meritless” or where the 

petitioner has engaged in “abusive litigation tactics or intentional delay.” Id. 

II. Analysis 

 Petitioner does not indicate whether he wishes the court to stay the case pursuant to Kelly

or Rhines. The Rhines procedure is plainly unavailable to petitioner here because his oneparagraph motion for stay fails to demonstrate good cause for his failure to exhaust whatever 

claims he wishes to present but has not yet exhausted. The Kelly procedure is also unavailable on 

the current showing, as petitioner has not described the claims that are currently unexhausted. 

Without that information, the court cannot determine whether the instant petition is fully 

exhausted and may be stayed or whether some claims must be dismissed from the action while 

petitioner returns to state court to exhaust them. Petitioner additionally makes no showing that 

the claims he has not yet exhausted could be added to the federal petition within the one-year 

limitations period. See King, 564 F.3d at 1141 (noting that the filing of a federal petition does not 

toll the limitations period and that any claims sought to be added to the petition must be added 

Case 2:15-cv-01318-TLN-EFB Document 19 Filed 12/02/15 Page 3 of 4
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

within the limitations period or must “relate back” to the petition’s original filing date by sharing 

a “common core of operative facts” with the claims that were properly exhausted at the time the 

federal petition was filed). 

III. Recommendation 

Petitioner’s August 31, 2015 motion for stay (ECF No. 13) fails to make a showing on 

which the court can stay the action. Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the motion 

be denied without prejudice. 

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 fourteen days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. 

Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

Dated: December 1, 2015.

 

Case 2:15-cv-01318-TLN-EFB Document 19 Filed 12/02/15 Page 4 of 4