Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02129/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02129-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Matthew S. Jones
Petitioner
G.D. Lewis
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

MATTHEW S. JONES,

Petitioner,

v.

G.D. LEWIS,

Respondent.

No. 2:13-cv-02129 DAD P

ORDER

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner also requests leave to proceed in forma pauperis; 

however, the second page of his application filed with the court is missing. Petitioner will be 

provided the opportunity to submit a complete application. The certificate portion of the 

application need not be completed since petitioner has already submitted the required 

certification. (See ECF No. 7 at 3.) 

Petitioner’s habeas petition presents two grounds for relief alleging ineffective assistance 

of counsel. Both of these claims appear to be unexhausted. If so, this action would be subject to 

dismissal since it appears petitioner has not included any exhausted claims in his petition filed 

with this court. See Raspberry v. Garcia, 448 F.3d 1150, 1154 (9th Cir.2006) (“District courts 

have the discretion to hold a mixed petition in abeyance pending exhaustion of the unexhausted 

claims. We decline to extend that rule to the situation where the original habeas petition 

Case 2:13-cv-02129-JKS Document 8 Filed 11/01/13 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

27

28

2

contained only unexhausted claims[.]”) However, it is also not clear whether petitioner has 

included all of the grounds for relief which he wishes to pursue in this habeas action in the 

petition now before the court. In this regard, the court notes that in his motion for stay and 

abeyance also now pending before the court, petitioner asserts that he has six exhausted claims as 

well as his two unexhausted ineffective assistance of counsel claims. (ECF No. 5 at 1 & 3.) In 

light of petitioner’s confusing and inconsistent assertions, the pending petition will be dismissed 

and petitioner will be granted leave to file an amended petition containing all of his claims. If he 

elects to file such an amended petition, petitioner is advised to use the court’s form habeas 

petition. Petitioner is also advised that it is not necessary to include his legal arguments and 

exhibits in his amended petition at this stage of the proceedings. Finally, in light of the court’s 

order granting petitioner leave to file an amended petition, his pending motion for a stay and 

abeyance will be denied without prejudice, since the petition currently pending before the court 

appears to be incomplete.

Because, for the reasons explained above, it appears that petitioner is asserting that he has 

both exhausted and unexhausted claims which if alleged would constitute a mixed petition, he is 

hereby advised of the following requirements for a motion for stay and abeyance. The United 

States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has analyzed the two procedures available to habeas 

petitioners who wish to proceed with both exhausted and unexhausted claims for relief. See King 

v. Ryan, 564 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 2009). First, the Ninth Circuit explained “the Kelly procedure,” 

outlined in Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2003). Under the three-step Kelly procedure, 

(1) the petitioner amends his petition to delete any unexhausted 

claims, (2) the court stays and holds in abeyance the amended, fully 

exhausted petition, allowing petitioner the opportunity to proceed to 

state court to exhaust the deleted claims, and (3) petitioner later 

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

the original petition. 

King, 564 F.3d at 1135. A petitioner who elects to proceed under the Kelly procedure will be 

able to amend his petition with his newly exhausted claims if they are timely under the statute of 

limitations governing the filing of federal habeas petitions. However, if a petitioner’s newlyexhausted claims are untimely, he will only be able to amend his petition to include them if they 

Case 2:13-cv-02129-JKS Document 8 Filed 11/01/13 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

27

28

3

share a “common core of operative facts” with the claims set forth in his original federal petition. 

In this regard, the Kelly procedure, unlike the alternative procedure discussed below, is a riskier 

one for a federal habeas petitioner because it does not protect a petitioner’s unexhausted claims 

from expiring during a stay. See King, 564 F.3d at 1140-41; see also Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 

167, 172-75 (2001) (unlike the filing of a state habeas petition, the filing of a federal habeas 

petition does not toll the statute of limitations).

As the Ninth Circuit explained in King, the United States Supreme Court has authorized 

an alternative stay and abeyance procedure which it outlined in Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 

277 (2005). Under the Rhines procedure, the petitioner need not amend his federal habeas 

petition to delete unexhausted claims. Instead, the petitioner may proceed on a “mixed petition,” 

i.e., one containing both exhausted and unexhausted claims, and his unexhausted claims remain 

pending in federal court while he returns to state court to exhaust them. See King, 564 F.3d at 

1140; Jackson v. Roe, 425 F.3d 654, 660 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Rhines concluded that a district court 

has discretion to stay a mixed petition to allow a petitioner time to return to state court to present 

unexhausted claims.”). A petitioner who elects to proceed under the Rhines procedure can, in 

many instances, avoid an issue with respect to the timeliness of the claims set forth in his federal 

petition. See King, 564 F.3d at 1140. However, the Supreme Court has cautioned that a “stay 

and abeyance [under the Rhines procedure] should be available only in limited circumstances,” 

and “district courts should place reasonable time limits on a petitioner’s trip to state court and 

back.” Rhines, 544 U.S. at 277-78. The Supreme Court explained that district courts should not 

grant such a stay if the petitioner has engaged in abusive litigation tactics or intentional delay or if 

the unexhausted claims are plainly meritless. Id. at 278. Further, under Rhines, “‘stay-andabeyance is only appropriate when the district court determines there was good cause for the 

petitioner’s failure to exhaust his claims first in state court.’” King, 564 F.3d at 1139 (quoting 

Rhines, 544 U.S. at 277-78). The decisions in both Kelly and Rhines “are directed at solving the

same problem – namely, the interplay between AEDPA’s one-year statute of limitations and the 

total exhaustion requirement first articulated in Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (1982).” King, 564 

F.3d at 1136. 

Case 2:13-cv-02129-JKS Document 8 Filed 11/01/13 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

27

28

4

For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner shall submit, within thirty days from the date of this order, a new application 

to proceed in forma pauperis;

2. Within thirty days from the date of this order, petitioner shall file an amended petition 

for a writ of habeas corpus that complies with the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure; the amended petition must bear the docket number assigned this case and must be 

labeled “Amended Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus"; petitioner must use the form petition 

provided by the Clerk of the Court and answer each question; 

3. Petitioner’s October 15, 2013 motion for stay and abeyance (ECF No. 5) is denied 

without prejudice and petitioner may file a new motion for stay and abeyance with his amended 

petition; 

4. Petitioner’s failure to comply with this order will result in the dismissal of this action; 

and

5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send petitioner a copy of the in forma pauperis 

form used by this district and the form petition for a writ of habeas corpus by a state prisoner.

Dated: October 31, 2013

DAD:4

jon2129.101.fta

Case 2:13-cv-02129-JKS Document 8 Filed 11/01/13 Page 4 of 4