Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00119/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00119-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
D. L. Runnels
Respondent
Gregory Young
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GREGORY YOUNG, 

Petitioner,

 vs.

D. L. RUNNELS, Warden,

Respondent.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 05-0119 JSW (PR)

SECOND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Petitioner, a prisoner of the State of California, currently incarcerated at California

State Prison-Sacramento in Represa, California, filed a habeas corpus petition pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the constitutional validity of his state conviction. 

This petition has a lengthy procedural history, resulting in significant delay in this

Court’s resolution of the merits of the claim now before it. Respondent has filed two

separate motions to dismiss the petition, the first on untimeliness grounds, where

Respondent ultimately conceded that the petition was timely, after investigating when

Petitioner had provided the petition for mailing to prison authorities. The second motion

to dismiss was based on lack of exhaustion of the claims in the Second Amended Petition.

After Petitioner requested leave to file a Third Amended Petition which contained both

exhausted and unexhausted claims, the Court granted Petitioner’s motion and provided

Petitioner with three options, allowing him to choose whether to proceed only on the

exhausted claim, claim two, to terminate this action and complete exhaustion in the

California Supreme Court before returning to this Court, or to request a stay of the

Case 3:05-cv-00119-JSW Document 28 Filed 01/08/08 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

proceedings while he exhausted the additional claims in the California Supreme Court. 

Petitioner was ordered to inform the Court of “good cause” for his failure to earlier

exhaust the claims under Rhines v. Webber, 125 S. Ct. 1528, 1535 (2005) if he was

requesting a stay to exhaust the unexhausted claims. While Petitioner first requested

option three and requested a stay (docket no. 25), he failed to provide the Court in his

motion with any allegations of “good cause” for the delay in previously exhausting his

claims. This Court denied the motion without prejudice and provided Petitioner with a

further opportunity to establish good cause, or in the alternative, to elect to proceed under

one of the other two options provided by the Court. 

Petitioner subsequently filed another document entitled “Election By

Petitioner,”(docket no. 27), in which he specified that he wished to proceed under option

one in the Court’s order of November 20, 2007, (docket no. 23). That option allowed

Petitioner to “dismiss the unexhausted claim (in the Third Amended Petition) and go

forward with only the remaining claims[.]” The Court had previously determined that only

claim two in the Third Amended Petition had been exhausted in the California Supreme

Court. Therefore, the Court now orders Respondent to show cause why Claim Two in the

Third Amended Petition should not be granted as set forth below.

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown,

1. The Clerk shall serve by certified mail a copy of this order and the Third

Amended Petition, and all attachments thereto, on Respondent and Respondent's attorney,

the Attorney General of the State of California. The Clerk also shall serve a copy of this

order on Petitioner. 

2. Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on Petitioner, within thirty (30)

days of the issuance of this order, an answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the

Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should

not be granted. Respondent shall file with the answer and serve on Petitioner a copy of all

Case 3:05-cv-00119-JSW Document 28 Filed 01/08/08 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

portions of the state trial record that have been transcribed previously and that are relevant

to a determination of the issues presented by the petition. If Petitioner wishes to respond

to the answer, he shall do so by filing a traverse with the Court and serving it on

Respondent within thirty (30) days of his receipt of the answer.

3. The Court finds that both parties have caused significant delay in this case,

resulting in this petition involving a single claim remaining unresolved three years after

the initial petition was filed. Therefore, the Court will not entertain any motions for an

extension of time to respond to this order to show cause, absent extraordinary

circumstances. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 8, 2008 JEFFREY S. WHITE

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-00119-JSW Document 28 Filed 01/08/08 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

YOUNG,

Plaintiff,

 v.

RUNNELS et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV05-00119 JSW 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District

Court, Northern District of California.

That on January 8, 2008, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said

copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing

said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery

receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Gregory Young

T11420

P.O. Box 715071

Represa, CA 95671

Jeffrey Michael Laurence

Office of the Attorney General

455 Golden Gate Avenue

Suite 11000

San Francisco, CA 94102

Dated: January 8, 2008

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Jennifer Ottolini, Deputy Clerk

Case 3:05-cv-00119-JSW Document 28 Filed 01/08/08 Page 4 of 4