Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00058/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00058-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Deborah Jacquez
Respondent
Terebea Jean Williams
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 None of petitioner’s claims asserts actual innocence. 1

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TEREBEA JEAN WILLIAMS,

Petitioner, No. CIV-S-05-0058 LKK KJM P 

vs.

DEBORAH JACQUEZ, 

Respondent. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Petitioner is a California prisoner proceeding pro se. Petitioner has filed an

amended petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

While it is not entirely clear, it appears as though petitioner has exhausted state

court remedies only with respect to claims two and five. Petitioner has filed a motion, under

Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005), asking that this matter be stayed pending exhaustion of

state court remedies with respect to the other six claims presented in petitioner’s amended

petition.1

/////

/////

Case 2:05-cv-00058-LKK -GGH Document 13 Filed 08/11/06 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

2

Under Rhines, a habeas petitioner must show good cause for her failure to exhaust

earlier and that the unexhausted claims are potentially meritorious. Rhines, 544 U.S. at 277. In

her motion for stay, petitioner asserts she did not exhaust earlier because she was not aware of

the exhaustion requirement. 

The court finds that petitioner has not established good cause for her failure to

exhaust state court remedies. Lack of knowledge with respect to a particular rule or law rarely,

if ever, provides justification for failure to comply with that rule or law. See, e.g., Ruley v.

Nelson, 106 F.R.D. 514, 518 (D.C. Nev. 1985). In the habeas context specifically, ignorance of

the law cannot provide a basis for excusing procedural default, e.g. Washington v. James, 996

F.2d 1442, 1447 (2d Cir. 1993), and cannot provide a basis for equitably tolling the statute of

limitations, e.g. Raspberry v. Garcia, 448 F.3d 1150, 1154 (9th Cir. 2006) (holding that “pro se

petitioner’s lack of legal sophistication is not, by itself, an extraordinary circumstance warranting

equitable tolling.”). There does not appear to be any reason to depart from the general principle

that ignorance of the law cannot excuse compliance with that law in this case. 

Based on the foregoing, the court will recommend that petitioner’s February 6,

2006 motion for a stay be denied. The court will recommend that petitioner be provided the

opportunity to file a second amended application for writ of habeas corpus in which she raises

only those exhausted claims identified as claims two and five in her amended petition. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 

1. Petitioner's February 6, 2006 motion for a stay be denied; and

2. Petitioner be given thirty days from the filing of any order adopting these

findings and recommendations to file a second amended application for writ of habeas corpus in

which petitioner raises only those exhausted claims included in her amended habeas petition.

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, petitioner may file written

Case 2:05-cv-00058-LKK -GGH Document 13 Filed 08/11/06 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

3

objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate

Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Petitioner 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: August 11, 2006.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1

will0058.157

Case 2:05-cv-00058-LKK -GGH Document 13 Filed 08/11/06 Page 3 of 3