Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-04174/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-04174-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Hunter Anglea
Respondent
Bernard Warren
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 Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

BERNARD WARREN, BB3793, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

HUNTER ANGLEA, Warden, 

Respondent. 

Case No. 19-cv-04174-CRB (PR) 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION 

FOR STAY AND 

ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSING 

CASE 

(ECF No. 20) 

Petitioner seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging a conviction 

and nine-year sentence from Sonoma County Superior Court for felony infliction of corporal 

injury resulting in a traumatic condition on his then-spouse, enhanced for inflicting great bodily 

injury under circumstances involving domestic violence. In the operative pro se petition, 

petitioner claims that: (1) trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to properly 

prepare for the charges and for failing to object to unidentified constitutional violations; (2) trial 

counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to object to the imposition of the upper-term 

sentence; and (3) the sentencing court erred by imposing the upper-term sentence. ECF No. 1 at 5. 

On August 26, 2019, the court (Westmore, M.J.) found that “[i]t does not appear from the 

face of the petition that it is without merit” and ordered respondent to show cause “why a writ of 

habeas corpus should not be issued.” ECF No. 7 at 1. Respondent filed an answer arguing that 

claim (1) is not sufficiently specific to warrant a response and is unexhausted; claim (3) is not 

cognizable under § 2254 and is unexhausted; and claim (2) does not warrant federal habeas relief 

because the state courts did not unreasonably reject it. Petitioner responded by filing a pro se 

motion for a stay under Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005), in order to exhaust a new claim of 

ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. 

Case 3:19-cv-04174-CRB Document 22 Filed 02/27/20 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 Californi

a

The court finds that claims (1) and (3) are unexhausted, and that claim (3) fails to state a 

cognizable claim under § 2254 because it is well established that, absent a showing of fundamental 

unfairness not present here, “a state court’s misapplication of its own sentencing laws does not 

justify federal habeas relief.” Christian v. Rhode, 41 F.3d 461, 469 (9th Cir. 1994). Claim (3) 

accordingly is DISMISSED with prejudice and petitioner’s pro se motion for a stay is liberally 

construed as a motion for a stay in order to exhaust claim (1) and a new claim of ineffective 

assistance of appellate counsel. 

A district court may stay a mixed habeas petition to allow the petitioner to exhaust in state 

court. See Rhines, 544 U.S. at 277-78. But the petitioner must show (1) “good cause” for his 

failure to exhaust in state court, (2) that his unexhausted claims are not “plainly meritless,” and (3) 

that he has not engaged in “intentionally dilatory litigation tactics.” Id. at 278. The court is 

satisfied that petitioner has made enough of a showing for a stay under the circumstances. 

Although petitioner must allege specific facts in order to properly exhaust claim (1) and his 

proposed new claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, neither claim is plainly 

meritless; petitioner has not engaged in intentionally dilatory litigation tactics; and petitioner’s 

claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel and allegations of subsequent pro se status and 

inadequate access to the law library may constitute good cause under Rhines. Cf. Blake v. Baker, 

745 F.3d 977, 982-84 (9th Cir. 2014) (claim of ineffective assistance by postconviction counsel 

may constitute good cause under Rhines). 

Petitioner’s motion (ECF No. 20) for a stay under Rhines to exhaust claim (1) and a new 

claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is GRANTED. The clerk is instructed to 

ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE the case. Nothing further will take place in this matter until 

petitioner exhausts his unexhausted claims in the state courts and, within 28 days thereafter, 

moves to reopen the case and lift the court’s stay. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 27, 2020 

______________________________________ 

CHARLES R. BREYER 

United States District Judge 

Case 3:19-cv-04174-CRB Document 22 Filed 02/27/20 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 Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

BERNARD WARREN, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

HUNTER ANGLEA, 

Defendant. 

Case No. 3:19-cv-04174-CRB 

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 February 27, 2020, 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. 

Bernard Warren ID: BB3793 

Vallecito Conservation Camp #1

3225 Six Mile Rd. 

Angels Camp, CA 95222 

Dated: February 27, 2020 

Susan Y. Soong 

Clerk, United States District Court 

By:________________________ 

Lashanda Scott, Deputy Clerk to the 

Honorable CHARLES R. BREYER 

Case 3:19-cv-04174-CRB Document 22 Filed 02/27/20 Page 3 of 3