Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03106/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03106-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jeff Macomber
Respondent
Francisco J. Serrano
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRANCISCO J. SERRANO,

Petitioner,

v.

JEFF MACOMBER,

Respondent.

Case No. 14-cv-03106-JD 

ORDER FOR PETITIONER TO FILE A 

RESPONSE

Petitioner, a California prisoner, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. As grounds for federal habeas relief, petitioner asserts that there was: (1) 

insufficient evidence to support aggravated assault due to the lack of evidence to corroborate a 

witnesses’ testimony; (2) insufficient evidence to support active participation in a criminal street 

gang; and (3) an error in sentencing. 

Respondent has filed a motion dismiss because only the first claim in the petition was 

fully exhausted, thus it is a mixed petition. Petitioner has filed a response requesting that the 

unexhausted claims be dismissed and the action continue on the exhausted claim that there was 

insufficient evidence to support aggravated assault due to the lack of evidence to corroborate a 

witnesses’ testimony. However, petitioner also has the option to seek a stay to exhaust the 

unexhausted claims.1 

Petitioner may proceed with the one exhausted claim as he indicated or he may file a 

 

1 Before he may challenge either the fact or length of his confinement in a habeas petition in this 

court, petitioner must present to the California Supreme Court any claims he wishes to raise in this 

court. See Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 522 (1982) (holding every claim raised in federal habeas 

petition must be exhausted). 

Case 3:14-cv-03106-JD Document 12 Filed 03/09/15 Page 1 of 4
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

motion to stay this action pending exhaustion of the unexhausted claims in state court.2 In Rhines 

v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005) the United States Supreme Court found that a stay and abeyance of 

a mixed federal petition should be available only in the limited circumstance that good cause is 

shown for a failure to have first exhausted the claims in state court, that the claim or claims at 

issue potentially have merit and that there has been no indication that petitioner has been 

intentionally dilatory in pursuing the litigation. Rhines, supra, at 277-78. 

If petitioner wishes to stay this action, he shall file a motion addressing the Rhines factors. 

In the alternative, petitioner may file a motion for a stay pursuant to the three-step procedure 

outlined in Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2003)3and King v. Ryan, 564 F.3d 1133 (9th 

Cir. 2009). A petitioner seeking to avail himself of the Kelly three-step procedure is not required 

to show good cause, as under Rhines, but rather must show that the amendment of any newly 

exhausted claims back into the petition satisfies both Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644, 655 (2005), by 

sharing a “common core of operative facts” and Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167 (2001), by 

complying with the statute of limitations. King, 564 F.3d at 1141-43 (finding district court’s 

dismissal of unexhausted claims was improper because petitioner was not required to show good 

cause to avail himself of the Kelly three-part procedure but affirming the dismissal as harmless 

because the unexhausted claims did not relate back to the claims in the original petition that were 

fully exhausted at the time of filing). However, no statute of limitations protection is imparted by 

such a stay, nor are exhausted claims adjudicated during the pendency of such a stay.

 

2

Petitioner is cautioned that the habeas corpus statute imposes a one-year statute of limitations for 

filing non-capital habeas corpus petitions in federal court. In most cases, the one year period will 

start to run on the date on which the state court judgment became final by the conclusion of direct 

review or the expiration of time for seeking direct review, although the statute of limitations is 

tolled while a properly filed application for state post-conviction or other collateral review is 

pending. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).

3

Pursuant to the Kelly procedure, (1) a petitioner amends his petition to delete any unexhausted 

claims; (2) the court stays and holds in abeyance the amended, fully exhausted petition, allowing 

the petitioner the opportunity to proceed to state court to exhaust the deleted claims; and (3) the 

petitioner later amends his petition and re-attaches the newly-exhausted claims to the original 

petition.” King v. Ryan, 564 F.3d at 1134 (citing Kelly, 315 F.3d at 1070-71).

Case 3:14-cv-03106-JD Document 12 Filed 03/09/15 Page 2 of 4
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

CONCLUSION

Within fourteen (14) days of the issuance of this Order, petitioner must inform the Court 

of which option he intends to follow. If he seeks to stay the case he must file a motion to stay 

following either the Rhines or Kelly procedures as described above. If petitioner does not file a 

response the action will continue on the one exhausted claim.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 9, 2015

______________________________________

JAMES DONATO

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-03106-JD Document 12 Filed 03/09/15 Page 3 of 4
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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRANCISCO J. SERRANO,

Plaintiff,

v.

JEFF MACOMBER,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-03106-JD 

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 3/9/2015, 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.

Francisco J. Serrano ID: AK7419

CSP-SAC C-2-226

P.O. Box 290066

Represa, CA 95671 

Dated: 3/9/2015

Richard W. Wieking

Clerk, United States District Court

By:________________________

LISA R. CLARK, Deputy Clerk to the 

Honorable JAMES DONATO

Case 3:14-cv-03106-JD Document 12 Filed 03/09/15 Page 4 of 4