Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02122/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02122-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jeffery Michael Hayes
Petitioner
James S. Yates
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEFFERY MICHAEL HAYES,

Petitioner,

 vs.

JAMES S. YATES, Warden,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 05-2122 CRB (PR)

ORDER GRANTING

RESPONDENT’S MOTION

TO DISMISS

(Doc # 14)

Petitioner, a state prisoner incarcerated at Pleasant Valley State Prison in

Coalinga, California, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28

U.S.C. § 2254 challenging a judgment of conviction from the Superior Court of

the State of California in and for the County of Santa Clara.

Per order filed on July 28, 2005, the court found that petitioner’s 15 claims

appeared colorable under § 2254 and ordered respondent to show cause why a

writ of habeas corpus should not be granted. 

After seeking and obtaining several extensions of time, respondent instead

moves to dismiss the petition for failure to exhaust state judicial remedies as to

all claims. Respondent also seeks to dismiss one of the claims as moot. 

Petitioner did not file an opposition.

Case 3:05-cv-02122-CRB Document 15 Filed 05/01/06 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

Respondent argues that the petition must be dismissed because petitioner

only exhausted claims 1 through 4 of the 15 claims he raised in his federal

petition, i.e., (1) trial counsel was ineffective because he failed to object to the

uncharged conduct evidence, (2) trial counsel was ineffective because he failed to

object to the prosecutor's motion to "de-bifurcate" the trial on the prior conviction

allegations, (3) trial counsel was ineffective because he failed to request an

imperfect self-defense instruction tailored to the mayhem charge, and (4) the trial

court erred by not giving the jury an imperfect self-defense instruction. 

Respondent also argues that petitioner's claim 5 – the trial court erred by

imposing a three-year term for the great bodily injury enhancement – is moot

because petitioner obtained relief on that claim from the California Court of

Appeal. The court agrees. Petitioner's claim 5 is moot and claims 6 through 15

are unexhausted because the Supreme Court of California has not been afforded

an opportunity to rule on them. 

For the foregoing reasons, respondent’s motion to dismiss (doc # 14) is

GRANTED. See Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 522 (1982) (mixed petition – one

containing both exhausted and unexhausted claims – must be dismissed without

prejudice). However, when faced with a mixed petition, as is the case here, the

district court must give the petitioner the option of either withdrawing his

unexhausted claims and proceeding only on his exhausted claims, or of

dismissing the entire mixed petition and returning to federal court with a new

petition once all claims are exhausted. See Jefferson v. Budge, 419 F.3d 1013,

1016 (9th Cir. 2005); Olvera v. Giurbino, 371 F.3d 569, 573 (9th Cir. 2004). 

Within 30 days of this order, petitioner shall inform the court in writing

whether he wishes to (1) withdraw his unexhausted claims and proceed only on

his exhausted claims, or (2) dismiss the entire mixed petition and return to federal

Case 3:05-cv-02122-CRB Document 15 Filed 05/01/06 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

1

Petitioner may be able to seek a stay of these proceedings if he can show

that there was good cause for his failure to exhaust his unexhausted claims in

state court, and that the claims are potentially meritorious. See Rhines v.

Webber, 125 S. Ct. 1528, 1534-35 (2005). 

3

court with a new petition once all claims are exhausted.1 Failure to respond

within the designated time will result in the dismissal of the entire mixed petition

without prejudice to filing a new federal petition containing only exhausted

claims. 

SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 28, 2006 CHARLES R. BREYER

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-02122-CRB Document 15 Filed 05/01/06 Page 3 of 3