Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_11-cv-06410/USCOURTS-cand-3_11-cv-06410-10/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ricky A. Hand
Petitioner
Gary Swarthout
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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

RICKY A. HAND,

Petitioner,

v.

GARY SWARTHOUT,

Respondent.

Case No. 11-cv-06410-WHO (PR) 

ORDER REOPENING ACTION AND 

DISSOLVING THE STAY;

ORDER SETTING BRIEFING 

SCHEDULE

Dkt. Nos. 42 and 43

INTRODUCTION 

This federal habeas corpus action was stayed so that petitioner Ricky Hand could 

exhaust a claim in the state courts. (Docket No. 36.) Hand now moves for the third time 

to reopen the action (Docket Nos. 42 and 43) on grounds that exhaustion is excused 

because the state supreme court has “waived jurisdiction.” While this argument is 

unavailing, his motion raises questions about the issue of exhaustion in this case. 

Accordingly, his motion to reopen is GRANTED and the stay is DISSOLVED so that the 

Court can be briefed on the matter. To that end, respondent is directed to file a response to 

this order on or before March 14, 2016. 

DISCUSSION 

According to the petition, in 2008, in the Alameda County Superior Court, Hand

pleaded nolo contendere to a charge of second degree robbery and admitted to a prior 

Case 3:11-cv-06410-WHO Document 44 Filed 01/29/16 Page 1 of 3
2

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

Northern District of California

conviction. He received a sentence of 15 years in state prison. Hand did not appeal. His 

state habeas petitions, all filed in 2011, were denied by the state superior, appellate, and 

supreme courts in March, April, and October of that year. 

He filed the instant federal habeas action in December 2011. The Court issued an 

Order to Show Cause to respondent, who filed a motion to dismiss on grounds that Hand 

failed to exhaust a claim. The motion was granted and the action was stayed in September 

2014 so that Hand could exhaust his claim. 

In November 2014, following the stay of the instant action, Hand filed a petition 

with the state supreme court, which interpreted the filing as a request to review the state 

appellate court’s 2011 decision. (Mot. to Reopen (“MTR”), Dkt. No. 43, at 19.) The 

court, citing loss of appellate jurisdiction because of the lapse of time, returned the petition 

to him “unfiled,” and suggested that Hand file a petition for writ of habeas corpus, which 

he did in December. (Id.) On December 17th, the state supreme court returned this 

petition as “unfiled” because it lacked “an original signature.” (Id. at 31.) Hand was 

advised to sign the petition and refile it, which he did. (Id.) On December 26th, the state 

supreme court again returned “unfiled” his (now signed) petition, again citing lack of 

appellate jurisdiction. (Id. at 32.) 

Hand contends that the December 26th letter indicates that the state supreme court 

has waived jurisdiction. This argument is mistaken. Exhaustion is not a requirement the 

state courts can invoke or waive. It can be raised by the state attorney general when 

challenging a federal habeas petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), (c); Lundy, 455 U.S. at 

515-16. The cases Hand cites (MTR at 4) show this. See, e.g., Granberry v. Greer, 481 

U.S. 129, 131 (1987) (duty of the state, through its attorney general, to raise and discuss 

exhaustion). (Also, his concern that his claims might be procedurally defaulted while he 

waits for a decision from the state court does not excuse or waive the exhaustion 

requirement.) 

However, I am puzzled by the state supreme court’s December 26th response to the 

petition. The petition does not appear to ask for review of an appellate decision, though 

Case 3:11-cv-06410-WHO Document 44 Filed 01/29/16 Page 2 of 3
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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

the state supreme court seems to have construed it so. Rather, it appears Hand filed it for 

“the sole purpose of exhausting state remedies before presenting a claim for federal habeas 

corpus relief.” Cal. Rule of Court, rule 8.508. He titled it “Petition For Review To 

Exhaust State Remedies 8.508(b)(3)(A)” as required by the rule, and the filing appears to 

otherwise comply with requirements. (MTR at 33.) 

The Court seeks clarification from respondent regarding the issue of exhaustion in 

this case. Accordingly, respondent shall file a response on that issue on or before March 

14, 2016. Petitioner’s response, if any, shall be filed within 30 days after respondent has 

filed his response to this order. 

CONCLUSION 

Hand’s motion to reopen (Dkt. Nos. 42 and 43) is GRANTED. The action is 

REOPENED and the stay is DISSOLVED. The Clerk is directed to modify the docket 

accordingly and terminate Dkt. Nos. 42 and 43. 

 Respondent shall file a response to this order on or before March 14, 2016. Hand’s 

response, if any, is due thirty days later. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 29, 2016

_________________________ 

WILLIAM H. ORRICK 

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-06410-WHO Document 44 Filed 01/29/16 Page 3 of 3