Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00264/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00264-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael Kentrel Brown
Petitioner
Tom L. Carey
Respondent

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Order Granting Petitioner’s Motion for Extension of Time; Granting Motion to Stay Petition; Denying Motion for Discovery; Instructions

to Clerk

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.06\Brown264stay

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL KENTREL BROWN,

Petitioner,

 v.

TOM L. CAREY, Warden

Respondent. ______________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

)

No. C 06-0264 JF (PR)

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME;

GRANTING MOTION TO STAY

PETITION; DENYING MOTION FOR

DISCOVERY; INSTRUCTIONS TO

CLERK

(Docket Nos. 10, 11, 12)

Petitioner, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks a writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Court initially denied Petitioner’s motion to stay the

instant petition and dismissed the petition with leave to amend in order for Petitioner to

identify all of his claims, both exhausted and unexhausted, that he intended to raise in this

Court. Petitioner has filed a motion for extension of time, an amended petition, a renewed

motion to stay and abey his amended petition, and a motion for discovery. The Court will

GRANT Petitioner’s motion for extension of time (docket no. 10) and motion to stay the

amended petition (docket no. 11). The Court will DENY Petitioner’s motion for discovery

(docket no. 12) without prejudice. 

**Original filed 4/25/07**

Case 3:06-cv-00264-WHA Document 20 Filed 04/25/07 Page 1 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 Order Granting Petitioner’s Motion for Extension of Time; Granting Motion to Stay Petition; Denying Motion for Discovery; Instructions

to Clerk

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.06\Brown264stay 2

BACKGROUND

An Alameda Superior Court jury convicted Petitioner of multiple counts of attempted

robbery (Cal. Penal Code §§ 664, 211, 212.5(c)), robbery (Cal. Penal Code §§ 211, 212.5(c)),

car jacking (Cal. Penal Code § 215) and one count of attempted escape (Cal. Penal Code §

4532(B)). With enhancements for his prior convictions, Petitioner was sentenced to a term of

eighty-seven years-to-life in state prison on September 23, 2002. On direct appeal, the

California Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in 2003 and the California Supreme Court

denied a petition for review in 2004. Petitioner filed a federal habeas petition and a motion

to stay the petition on January 17, 2006. The Court denied Petitioner’s motion to stay the

instant petition and dismissed the petition with leave to amend. Petitioner filed an amended

petition alleging twenty-eight claims; claims fourteen and twenty-eight are exhausted. 

DISCUSSION

A. Motion for Extension of Time

Petitioner filed a motion for extension of time to file an amended petition and a

renewed motion to stay the amended petition. Thereafter, Petitioner filed his renewed motion

to stay and an amended petition. The Court concludes that Petitioner has shown good cause

for such extension. Petitioner’s motion for extension of time (docket no. 10) is GRANTED. 

B. Motion to Stay Petition

Petitioner has filed a renewed motion to stay the petition in order to raise his

unexhausted claims in state court. District courts have the authority to issue stays and

AEDPA does not deprive them of that authority. Rhines v. Webber, 544 U.S. 269, 277-78

(2005). The district court’s discretion to stay a mixed petition is circumscribed by AEDPA’s

stated purposes of reducing delay in the execution of criminal sentences and encouraging

petitioners to seek relief in the state courts before filing their claims in federal court. Id.

Because the use of a stay and abeyance procedure has the potential to undermine these dual

purposes of AEDPA, its use is only appropriate where the district court has first determined

that there was good cause for the petitioner’s failure to exhaust the claims in state court and

Case 3:06-cv-00264-WHA Document 20 Filed 04/25/07 Page 2 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 Order Granting Petitioner’s Motion for Extension of Time; Granting Motion to Stay Petition; Denying Motion for Discovery; Instructions

to Clerk

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.06\Brown264stay 3

that the claims are potentially meritorious. Id. Moreover, where granting a stay, the district

court must effectuate the timeliness concerns in AEDPA by placing “reasonable limits on a

petitioner’s trip to state court and back.” Id. at 278. Prisoners who may run the risk of

having the federal statute of limitations expire while they are exhausting their state remedies

may avoid this predicament “by filing a ‘protective’ petition in federal court and asking the

federal court to stay and abey the federal habeas proceedings until state remedies are

exhausted.” Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 416 (2005) (citing Rhines, 544 U.S. at 277-

78). 

Here, Petitioner’s proposed claims are cognizable under § 2254 and are not “plainly

meritless.” Petitioner appears to show good cause for his failure to exhaust his additional

claims in state court based upon his attempts to obtain copies of his transcripts, his allegation

of ineffective assistance of counsel and his appellate counsel’s failure to raise these claims on

direct appeal. Additionally, the Court notes that Respondent has yet to file an answer to the

petition and Petitioner filed a motion to stay with his original petition in this Court. Thus,

Petitioner does not appear to be intentionally delaying this action. Accordingly, Petitioner’s

motion to stay the instant petition to allow him to exhaust his additional claims (docket no.

11) is GRANTED. This action is hereby STAYED until thirty days after the California

Supreme Court’s final decision on Petitioner’s additional claims, as set forth below.

C. Motion for Discovery

 Petitioner filed a motion for discovery to obtain trial transcripts of his underlying 

Alameda Superior Court criminal proceeding. Petitioner has included supporting

documentation showing his requests for transcripts in the state court. A habeas petitioner,

unlike the usual civil litigant in federal court, is not entitled to discovery as a matter of

ordinary course. See Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899, 904 (1997). However, Rule 6(a) of

the Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254, provides that a

“party shall be entitled to invoke the processes of discovery available under the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure if, and to the extent that, the judge in the exercise of his discretion and for

Case 3:06-cv-00264-WHA Document 20 Filed 04/25/07 Page 3 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 Order Granting Petitioner’s Motion for Extension of Time; Granting Motion to Stay Petition; Denying Motion for Discovery; Instructions

to Clerk

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.06\Brown264stay 4

good cause shown grants leave to do so, but not otherwise.” Good cause for discovery under

Rule 6(a) is shown “‘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 . . .’” Id. at 908-09 (quoting Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286, 299 (1969));

Pham v. Terhune, 400 F.3d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 2005). 

Here, Petitioner requests transcripts of his underlying criminal case in order to present

his unexhausted claims to the state supreme court. However, Petitioner included a letter from

his appellate attorney in his petition noting that a copy of the transcripts were provided to

Petitioner. Additionally, the Court notes that Petitioner has presented the factual basis for his

unexhausted claims in his amended petition, which is all that is required at this stage of the

proceedings. Based upon the Court’s stay of the instant petition, Petitioner’s motion for

discovery is DENIED. Petitioner may request discovery in his state court habeas proceeding

when he presents his unexhausted claims in the state supreme court. Petitioner may renew

his motion for discovery after he has completely exhausted his state court remedies. Once

Petitioner has exhausted his additional claims, the Court will conduct an initial review of the

amended petition and order Respondent to provide a copy of all relevant proceedings from

the underlying state court record, if appropriate. Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion for

discovery (docket no. 12) is DENIED without prejudice. 

CONCLUSION

1. Petitioner’s motion for extension of time (docket no. 10) is GRANTED. 

2. Petitioner’s motion for discovery (docket no. 12) is DENIED without 

prejudice.

3. Petitioner’s motion to stay the amended petition (docket no. 11) is 

GRANTED, and the above-titled action is hereby STAYED until thirty days after the

California Supreme Court’s final decision on Petitioner’s additional claims.

\\\

\\\

Case 3:06-cv-00264-WHA Document 20 Filed 04/25/07 Page 4 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 Order Granting Petitioner’s Motion for Extension of Time; Granting Motion to Stay Petition; Denying Motion for Discovery; Instructions

to Clerk

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.06\Brown264stay 5

4. Petitioner is cautioned that if he wishes to have this Court consider his 

unexhausted claims, he must properly present those claims to the California Supreme Court

within thirty days of the date this order is filed.

5. Once the California Supreme Court has issued a decision on Petitioner’s 

additional claims, and if he has not obtained relief in state court, Petitioner shall promptly

notify this Court within thirty days of the California Supreme Court’s decision. 

6. The Clerk shall ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE the file pending the stay 

of this action. This has no legal effect; it is purely a statistical procedure. When Petitioner

informs the Court that he has exhausted his additional claims, the case will be

administratively re-opened. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: _______________ JEREMY FOGEL

 United States District Judge

4/25/07

Case 3:06-cv-00264-WHA Document 20 Filed 04/25/07 Page 5 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 Order Granting Petitioner’s Motion for Extension of Time; Granting Motion to Stay Petition; Denying Motion for Discovery; Instructions

to Clerk

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.06\Brown264stay 6

A copy of this ruling was mailed to the following:

Michael Kentrel Brown

T-70229

CSP -Corcoran

P.O. Box 3466

Corcoran, CA 93212

Case 3:06-cv-00264-WHA Document 20 Filed 04/25/07 Page 6 of 6