Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02081/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02081-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Aloysius P. Franklin
Petitioner
E. Valenzuela
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALOYSIUS P. FRANKLIN,

Petitioner,

v.

E. VALENZUELA,

Respondent.

No. 2:15-cv-2081 GEB CKD P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a petition for a 

writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner challenges his 2011 conviction in 

the San Joaquin Superior Court for second degree robbery and personal use of a firearm, for 

which he was sentenced to a prison term of 19 years. (ECF No. 22.) Before the court for 

screening is the Third Amended Petition. (Id.) 

The original petition in this action was “mixed,” containing both exhausted and 

unexhausted claims. (See ECF No. 6.) It was dismissed with leave to amend, and petitioner was 

advised of different options, including filing an amended petition containing only exhausted 

claims and a motion to stay pursuant to Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2003). (Id.) 

The First Amended Petition also contained unexhausted claims. (See ECF No. 10.) 

Petitioner did not meet the criteria for a stay pursuant to Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005), 

and the undersigned recommended that he “be directed file a second amended petition containing 

Case 2:15-cv-02081-GEB-CKD Document 24 Filed 05/10/16 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

27

28

2

only exhausted claims.” (Id.; see ECF No. 13.)

Before those findings and recommendations were adopted, petitioner filed a Second 

Amended Petition. (ECF No. 12.) This petition was summarily dismissed with leave to amend 

because “it is not clear which of [the] claims have been exhausted in the state courts” and because 

the petition did not meet the Habeas Rule 2(c) pleading requirements. (ECF No. 14.) 

In the Third Amended Petition now before the court, petitioner asserts fourteen grounds 

for relief. (ECF No. 22.) On the portion of the court’s form concerning exhaustion of remedies, 

petitioner indicates that two claims concerning newly-discovered evidence “were not previously 

presented in any other court, state or federal[.]” (Id. at 7.) Thus it appears that, once again, 

petitioner has submitted a mixed petition.

Concurrent with the Third Amended Petition, petitioner has filed a motion to stay this 

action pursuant to Kelly, 315 F.3d 1063. (ECF No. 20.) However, as explained in an earlier 

order, a Kelly stay only applies to a fully-exhausted petition. (ECF No. 6.) 

Moreover, the Third Amended Petition does not cure the defects of the Second Amended 

Petition in that it does not “state facts that point to a real possibility of constitutional error.” (See

ECF No. 14, citing Habeas Rules 2(c) & 4.) 

For the foregoing reasons and because further leave to amend appears futile, the 

undersigned will recommend that the Third Amended Petition be dismissed without prejudice.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Petitioner’s motion to stay (ECF No. 20) be denied; and 

2. The Third Amended Petition be dismissed without prejudice. 

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 fourteen days 

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

objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 

Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” In his objections petitioner may address whether a 

certificate of appealability should issue in the event he files an appeal of the judgment in this 

////

Case 2:15-cv-02081-GEB-CKD Document 24 Filed 05/10/16 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

27

28

3

case. See Rule 11, Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases (the district court must issue or 

deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant). 

Dated: May 10, 2016

2 /fran2081.kelly

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:15-cv-02081-GEB-CKD Document 24 Filed 05/10/16 Page 3 of 3