Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00175/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00175-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Curtis M. John-Charles
Petitioner
State of California
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CURTIS M. JOHN-CHARLES,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-05-0175 MCE GGH P

vs.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Respondents. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a habeas corpus petition

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This action is proceeding on the original petition which contains

four exhausted claims. In the petition and a letter filed January 27, 2005, petitioner stated that he

was in the process of exhausting additional claims and requested that this action be held in

abeyance pending further exhaustion.

On June 30, 2005, the court ordered petitioner to file further briefing within thirty

days addressing why he failed to exhaust all of his claims in state court before filing this action. 

As noted in that order, in Rhines v. Weber, ___ U.S. ___, 125 S.Ct. 1528 (2005) the Supreme

Court recently held that a habeas petition may only be stayed if the petitioner can show good

cause for his failure to first exhaust his claims in state court.

/////

/////

Case 2:05-cv-00175-MCE -GGH Document 17 Filed 10/28/05 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

1

 Petitioner is cautioned that the habeas corpus statute imposes a one year statute of

limitations for filing non-capital habeas corpus petitions in federal court. In most cases, the one year

period will start to run on the date on which the state court judgment became final by the conclusion

of direct review or the expiration of time for seeking direct review, although the statute of limitations

is tolled while a properly filed application for state post-conviction or other collateral review is

pending. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). 

The statute of limitations is not tolled while petitioner’s federal habeas petition is

pending in federal court. 

On July 8, 2005, petitioner filed a response to the June 30, 2005, order. Petitioner

did not address why he did not exhaust all of his claims in state court before filing this action. 

On August 5, 2005, the court granted petitioner one final opportunity to address this issue. On

August 12, 2005, petitioner filed a response to the August 5, 2005,order. Petitioner states that he

did not exhaust all claims before filing this action because his attorney on direct appeal in state

court did not raise all of his claims. He also states that he has had to rely on assistance from

other inmates in pursuing his additional claims.

The failure of petitioner’s state appellate lawyer to raise all claims on direct

appeal does not explain why petitioner did not exhaust all of his claims before filing his federal

petition. Nor does the fact that petitioner sought assistance from other inmates explain his failure

to fully exhaust. Accordingly, petitioner’s request to hold this action in abeyance should be

denied.

Petitioner has the choice of either proceeding on the exhausted claims only or

dismissing this action and refiling it once all of his claims are exhausted. Johnson v. Budge, 419

F.3d 1013 (9th Cir. 2005).1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that petitioner’s request to hold

this action in abeyance contained in the petition and letter filed January 27, 2005, be denied;

petitioner be ordered to inform the court whether he wishes to proceed on his exhausted claims

only or dismiss this action.

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 twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Case 2:05-cv-00175-MCE -GGH Document 17 Filed 10/28/05 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

Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: 10/28/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

john175.den UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-00175-MCE -GGH Document 17 Filed 10/28/05 Page 3 of 3