Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00447/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00447-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Courtney Crosby
Petitioner
T. Schwartz
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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

Courtney Crosby,

Petitioner, No. Civ. S 05-0447 GEB PAN P

vs. Findings and Recommendations

T. Schwartz,

Respondent.

-oOoPetitioner was convicted in the Sacramento County Superior

Court of violating Penal Code § 290(g)(2) (failure to register as

a sex offender) and allegations of a prior conviction were found

to be true. Petitioner was sentenced in 2002 to serve 26 years

to life in prison.

The case proceeds on the March 7, 2005, amended petition. 

Petitioner concedes claims A, K and L are unexhausted, but seeks

a stay until the California Supreme Court decides the same claims

now before it in habeas petition S130219 (filed three months

before petitioner filed his petition herein).

August 24, 2005, respondent moved to dismiss the mixed

petition. Respondent concurs claims A, K, and L are pending

Case 2:05-cv-00447-GEB-KJN Document 35 Filed 11/29/05 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

before the California Supreme Court but does not address the

propriety of a stay. Respondent further argues parts of claims

D, E, F, H and I are neither exhausted nor present in any

petition before the California Supreme Court.

Petition opposed dismissal, contending all claims and parts

of claims are exhausted except A, K and L and reiterating his

request for a stay. 

Having reviewed all petitions and addendums petitioner

submitted to the California Supreme Court (Lodged Docs. 1, 3, 4

and 6), the court concludes that court was fairly apprised of all

petitioner’s claims and subclaims, and ruled upon all of them

except claims A, K and L. 

To grant a stay this court must find good cause for

petitioner’s failure to exhaust unexhausted claims earlier and

that the unexhausted claims are not plainly meritless. Rhines v.

Weber, U.S. , 125 S.Ct. 1528 (2005). Claim A alleges

petitioner’s waiver of his right to a jury trial was not

voluntary considering his documented mental impairments

(schizophrenia and mental retardation) and coercion by the trial

court and counsel. Claims K and L allege appellate counsel was

constitutionally deficient in failing to raise claims of

ineffective assistance of trial counsel and involuntariness of

the jury trial waiver on appeal. 

Respondent has not explained why claims A, K and L are

plainly meritless, nor does it appear they are. If petitioner

succeeds on Claims K and L, that likely will provide “good cause”

Case 2:05-cv-00447-GEB-KJN Document 35 Filed 11/29/05 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

for his prior failure to exhaust claims. Accordingly, the court

finds the Rhines requirements are satisfied.

The court hereby recommends respondent’s August 24, 2005,

motion to dismiss be denied and the mixed petition be stayed

until the California Supreme Court resolves pending claims in

habeas petition S130219. 

Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l), these

findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States

District Judge assigned to this case. Written objections may be

filed within 10 days of service of these findings and

recommendations. The document should be captioned “Objections to

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The district

judge may accept, reject, or modify these findings and

recommendations in whole or in part.

Dated: November 29, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:05-cv-00447-GEB-KJN Document 35 Filed 11/29/05 Page 3 of 3