Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00836/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00836-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Adams
Respondent
Kim Allen La Chappelle
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KIM ALLEN LA CHAPPELLE, 

Petitioner, No. CIV S-07-0836 GEB GGH P

vs.

ADAMS, 

Respondent. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This action is proceeding on the original petition filed May

2, 2007. Petitioner challenges his 2005 conviction for mayhem, assault with a deadly weapon,

possession of a firearm, possession of ammunition, discharge of a firearm causing great bodily

injury and firearm usage. Petition, p. 1. 

On July 2, 2007, the court ordered petitioner to file briefing addressing whether

good cause exists for his failure to exhaust state court remedies prior to filing this action. On

July 18, 2007, petitioner filed a response to this order. After reviewing the record, the court

recommends that this action be stayed pending petitioner’s exhaustion of state court remedies.

/////

/////

Case 2:07-cv-00836-JLR Document 6 Filed 08/07/07 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

 A petition may be denied on the merits without exhaustion of state court remedies. 28 1

U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2). 

2

The exhaustion of state court remedies is a prerequisite to the granting of a

petition for writ of habeas corpus. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). If exhaustion is to be waived, it must

be waived explicitly by respondent’s counsel. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(3). A waiver of exhaustion, 1

thus, may not be implied or inferred. A petitioner satisfies the exhaustion requirement by

providing the highest state court with a full and fair opportunity to consider all claims before

presenting them to the federal court. Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276, 92 S. Ct. 509, 512

(1971); Middleton v. Cupp, 768 F.2d 1083, 1086 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 478 U.S. 1021 (1986). 

In Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 125 S.Ct. 1528 (2005), the Supreme Court held

that courts may stay mixed petitions while a petitioner exhausts his unexhausted claims in state

court only when 1) good cause exists for petitioner’s failure to exhaust; 2) petitioner’s

unexhausted claims are not “plainly meritless”; and 3) there is no indication that petitioner

engaged in “abusive litigation tactics or intentional delay.” 544 U.S. at 277-278, 125 S.Ct. 1528. 

In Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 416, 125 S.Ct. 1807, 1813 (2005), the

Supreme Court approved the filing of “protective petitions”:

Finally, petitioner challenges the fairness of our interpretation. He claims that a

“petitioner trying in good faith to exhaust state remedies may litigate in state court

for years only to find out at the end that he was never ‘properly filed,’” and thus

that his federal habeas petition is time barred. Brief for Petition 30. A prisoner

seeking post conviction relief might avoid this predicament, however, 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. See Rhines v.

Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 125 S.Ct. 1528, 1531, 161 L.Ed.2d 440 (2005). A

petitioner’s reasonable confusion about whether a state filing would be timely will

ordinarily constitute “good cause” for him to file in federal court.

Pace, 544 U.S. at 416, 125 S.Ct. at 1813.

The California Supreme Court denied petitioner’s petition for review on April 12,

2006. Petition, p. 2. Petitioner’s conviction became final 90 days later, i.e. on July 11, 2006. 

Patterson v. Stewart, 251 F.3d 1243 (9th Cir. 2001). Absent statutory or equitable tolling,

Case 2:07-cv-00836-JLR Document 6 Filed 08/07/07 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

3

petitioner had one year from that date to file a timely federal petition, i.e. until July 12, 2007. 21

U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A). The time during which a properly filed state habeas petition is pending

tolls the limitation period. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).

In his further briefing, petitioner states that in desperation, his wife filed a habeas

corpus petition in the California Supreme Court raising the same claims as were raised on direct

appeal. Petitioner does not state when the petition was filed, although it was denied on January

24, 2007. Petitioner states approximately 90 days after the California Supreme Court denied this

petition, he filed a habeas corpus petition in the Yolo County Superior Court raising new claims. 

The Superior Court denied this petition on May 31, 2007. Petitioner filed a habeas corpus

petition in the California Court of Appeal on June 22, 2007, which is still pending.

In his petition, petitioner states that he filed the instant action because he was

concerned that the statute of limitations may have run.

Without knowing the grounds on which the California Supreme Court and

Superior Court denied petitioner’s state habeas petitions, this court cannot determine whether the

filing of a protective petition is necessary. However, in his further briefing, petitioner suggests

that he believed that a protective petition was warranted because his second round of state habeas

petitions may not have been properly filed as they were “successive” to the first petition filed in

the California Supreme Court. While this understanding of events may not be correct, it is not

unreasonable for a pro se habeas petitioner. 

Because petitioner’s unexhausted claims are not plainly meritless and because

petitioner has shown good cause to support his stay, the court recommends that this action be

stayed.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be

administratively stayed pending petitioner’s exhaustion of state court remedies.

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

Case 2:07-cv-00836-JLR Document 6 Filed 08/07/07 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

4

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

objections with the court. The 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: 8/7/07

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

lach836.56

Case 2:07-cv-00836-JLR Document 6 Filed 08/07/07 Page 4 of 4