Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02561/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02561-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Oscar Alejandro Carrillo
Petitioner
William Muniz
Respondent

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OSCAR ALEJANDRO CARRILLO,

Plaintiff,

v.

WILLIAM MUNIZ,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-02561-JSC 

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE MOTION TO STAY; 

DENYING LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED 

PETITION

Re: Dkt. No. 6

Petitioner, a prisoner of the State of California, filed a habeas corpus petition pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. 2254 challenging the constitutionality of his state conviction. 1 The petition raises one 

claim for relief: that the trial court admitted statements by Petitioner to the police that were 

obtained in violation of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 486 (1966). The Court 

found that the claim was sufficient to warrant an answer, and ordered Respondent to show cause 

why the petition should not be granted. The Court further noted that Plaintiff indicated that he 

might have additional claims not presented in the petition. Accordingly, Petitioner was advised 

that if he wished to pursue additional claims, he would have to file an amended petition.

Petitioner filed an amended petition in which he requests a stay while he exhausts two 

additional claims -- of prosecutorial misconduct and ineffective assistance of counsel.2 To obtain 

such a stay, Petitioner is required to show that the additional claims he is pursuing are potentially 

 

1

Petitioner has consented to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 636(c). (Dkt. No. 3.) 

2

The amended petition also includes a “Pitchess motion,” i.e. a motion to discover police 

personnel files under Pitchess v. Superior Court, 11 Cal. 3d 531 (1974). That motion is based 

upon state law and may only be brought in state court, not federal court. 

Case 3:15-cv-02561-JD Document 9 Filed 10/07/15 Page 1 of 2
2

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

meritorious, and to show cause for his failure to exhaust his claims in the state courts before he 

filed the instant federal petition. See Rhines v. Webber 544 U.S. 269, 278-79 (2005). Petitioner’s 

unexhausted claims are potentially meritorious insofar as he asserts the violation of his federal 

constitutional rights to due process and to counsel. He has not, however, explained why he did not 

exhaust his claims prior to filing the instant federal petition, let alone shown cause for the failure. 

Consequently, the motion for a stay is DENIED without prejudice to filing another such motion 

within 28 days of the date this Order is filed. The motion must show cause for not exhausting 

his two unexhausted claims before filing the instant federal petition; that is, he must explain why 

he has a good reason for not earlier exhausting the claims. If Petitioner fails to file such a motion 

within that time, or the motion is without merit, this case will proceed solely on the basis of the 

exhausted Miranda claim in the original petition, and Petitioner will not be allowed a further 

opportunity to obtain a stay for purposes of exhausting additional claims. 

In the meantime, Respondent shall follow the instructions set forth in the Order to Show 

Cause, and this case will proceed based upon the original petition. Leave to file the amended 

petition is DENIED because it only includes the two new and unexhausted claims. Petitioner may 

pursue the two new claims by filing a motion for leave to file an amended petition that includes 

them, either after the two claims are exhausted or in conjunction with a renewed motion for a stay 

as described above. If he wishes to keep pursuing his existing Miranda claim, he must include it 

in any amended petition he seeks to file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: Oct. 7, 2015 ________________________

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:15-cv-02561-JD Document 9 Filed 10/07/15 Page 2 of 2