Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02578/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02578-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Charles DeRosa
Respondent
Teng Yang
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TENG YANG, 

Petitioner, No. CIV S-09-2578 KJM P

vs.

CHARLES DeROSA, Warden, 

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for a writ of

habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with an application to proceed in forma pauperis. 

He challenges his Butte County convictions for a number of state offenses and raises the

following grounds in his petition: (1) the trial court erred in refusing to order testing of

petitioner’s jacket or, in the alternative, to appoint counsel to investigate trial counsel’s

effectiveness; (2) the trial court erred in refusing to bifurcate the trial on the gang enhancement;

(3) the gang enhancement allegation is not supported by substantial evidence; (4) the imposition

of the upper term on the assault and firearm enhancement violates petitioners’s right to a jury

trial; (5) petitioner’s statement was taken in violation of his Miranda rights; (6) the warrantless

search of petitioner’s house violated the Fourth Amendment; (7) the court erred in instructing the

jury that it could consider gang evidence in evaluating witness testimony; (8) counsel failed to

Case 2:09-cv-02578-KJM Document 12 Filed 03/18/10 Page 1 of 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

 This application was signed by petitioner himself, to all appearances. 1

 A petition may be denied on the merits without exhaustion of state court remedies. 28 2

U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2). 

2

use an expert on eyewitness identification; (9) trial counsel failed to subpoena Tong Xiong as a

defense witness; (10) the jurors engaged in misconduct during deliberations; (11) the bailiff

pressured the jury; and (12) appellate counsel was ineffective. This petition is not signed by

petitioner, but is signed by a writ writer purporting to act on petitioner’s behalf.

Examination of the in forma pauperis application reveals that petitioner is unable

to afford the costs of suit. Accordingly, the application to proceed in forma pauperis will be 1

granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

The same writ writer who signed the petition has filed a motion for a stay. He

argues that the first seven issues raised in the petition have been exhausted by direct appeal, but

that additional issues have been raised in a collateral attack currently pending in the state court. 

Because the motion has not been signed by petitioner and because the prison writ writer cannot

represent petitioner, the motion is not properly before the court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a); Dang v.

Sisto, 2008 WL 2563221 at 1 n.1 (N.D. Cal. 2008). 

Even if the court considers the motion on its merits, petitioner has not satisfied the

requirements for a stay. The court has the authority to stay a habeas petition so that the petitioner

can exhaust state court remedies if the petitioner shows his claims are potentially meritorious and

that there is good cause for his failure to exhaust earlier. Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 277

(2005). Petitioner has not made the requisite showing of good cause. 

The exhaustion of state court remedies is a prerequisite to the granting of a

petition for writ of habeas corpus. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). If exhaustion is to be waived, it must

be waived explicitly by respondents’ counsel. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(3). A waiver of exhaustion, 2

thus, may not be implied or inferred. A petitioner satisfies the exhaustion requirement by

providing the highest state court with a full and fair opportunity to consider all claims before

Case 2:09-cv-02578-KJM Document 12 Filed 03/18/10 Page 2 of 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

 Petitioner is cautioned that if he chooses to proceed on an amended petition raising only 3

exhausted claims he will risk forfeiting consideration of the unexhausted claims in this or any other

federal court. See McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467 (1991);see also Rose, 455 U.S. at 520-21; Rule

9(b), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.

3

presenting them to the federal court. Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276 (1971); Middleton v.

Cupp, 768 F.2d 1083, 1086 (9th Cir. 1986). 

The state court has had an opportunity to rule on the merits when a petitioner has

fairly presented the claim to that court. The fair presentation requirement is met where the

petitioner has described the operative facts and legal theory on which his claim is based. Picard,

404 U.S. at 277-78. Generally, it is “not enough that all the facts necessary to support the federal

claim were before the state courts . . . or that a somewhat similar state-law claim was made.”

Anderson v. Harless, 459 U.S. 4, 6 (1982). Instead, 

[i]f state courts are to be given the opportunity to correct alleged

violations of prisoners’ federal rights, they must surely be alerted

to the fact that the prisoners are asserting claims under the United

States Constitution. If a habeas petitioner wishes to claim that an

evidentiary ruling at a state court trial denied him the due process

of law guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, he must say so,

not only in federal court, but in state court.

Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365 (1995). Accordingly, “a claim for relief in habeas corpus

must include reference to a specific federal constitutional guarantee, as well as a statement of the

facts which entitle the petitioner to relief.” Gray v. Netherland, 518 U.S. 152, 162-63 (1996). 

The United States Supreme Court has held that a federal district court may not entertain a

petition for habeas corpus unless the petitioner has exhausted state remedies with respect to each

of the claims raised. Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (1982). A mixed petition containing both

exhausted and unexhausted claims must be dismissed.

To the extent claims eight through twelve have not been exhausted, the petition is

a mixed petition containing both exhausted and unexhausted claims and must be dismissed. 

Good cause appearing, petitioner will be granted thirty days to file an amended petition raising

only exhausted claims.

3

Case 2:09-cv-02578-KJM Document 12 Filed 03/18/10 Page 3 of 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

 Petitioner is further 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). 

4

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (docket no. 5) is granted; 

2. Petitioner’s motion for a stay (docket no. 3) is denied; 

3. Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus is dismissed; and

4. Petitioner is granted thirty days from the date of this order to file an amended

petition signed by petitioner raising only exhausted claims. Failure to comply with this order will

result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed without prejudice.

DATED: March 17, 2010.

2

yang2578.103+

Case 2:09-cv-02578-KJM Document 12 Filed 03/18/10 Page 4 of 4