Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_17-cv-00792/USCOURTS-caed-2_17-cv-00792-7/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Rolando Arismendez
Petitioner
David Baughman
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

ROLANDO ARISMENDEZ,

Petitioner,

v.

DAVID BAUGHMAN,

Respondent.

No. 2:17-cv-00792-MCE-CKD P

ORDER AND 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Petitioner is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se in this federal habeas corpus 

action filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On March 4, 2019, petitioner filed a motion to stay 

this federal habeas action as well as a motion for an extension of time to file a first amended 

habeas petition.1 ECF Nos. 22-23. Respondent filed an opposition to the motion for a stay on 

March 27, 2019. ECF No. 24. On April 28, 2019, petitioner filed a reply to the opposition. ECF 

No. 25. Several days later, petitioner filed a first amended § 2254 petition along with a second 

motion to stay and abey these proceedings in order to exhaust additional claims in state court. 

For the reasons explained in greater detail below, the undersigned recommends that petitioner’s 

motion for a stay be granted in part and denied in part.

/////

 

1 All filing dates are calculated using the prisoner mailbox rule. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 

266 (1988).

Case 2:17-cv-00792-MCE-CKD Document 29 Filed 01/13/20 Page 1 of 8
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

I. Procedural History of the Case

The procedural history of this case demonstrates the difficulties that petitioner has had in 

not only completing basic court forms but, even more so, in maneuvering through the complex 

web of federal habeas procedures. Petitioner’s initial federal habeas application was filed using 

the state court form, was not signed by petitioner, and indicated that it may have been intended to 

be filed in the Yolo County Superior Court where petitioner was convicted. ECF No. 1. Before 

any of these issues were addressed by the court, petitioner was provided multiple opportunities to 

pay the $5.00 filing fee or request in forma pauperis status to proceed in this civil action. See

ECF Nos. 3, 5, 6. Eventually, petitioner chose to pay the filing fee rather than complete the in 

forma pauperis application. ECF No. 6. 

Following service of the federal habeas petition on respondent and a motion to dismiss 

based on the lack of a signature on the petition itself, the undersigned ordered petitioner to show 

cause whether he intended to “pursue habeas corpus relief in the Yolo County Superior Court by 

filing a notice of voluntary dismissal in this court; or, [whether] he intend[ed] to pursue federal 

habeas corpus relief by filing an amended 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition along with a motion for a 

stay and abeyance.” ECF No. 13 at 4. Petitioner was not only advised that he may file a motion 

for a stay and abeyance, but he was also informed of the legal standards for doing so pursuant to 

either Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (1995), or Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2003).2

ECF No. 13 at 2. 

After being granted a sua sponte extension of time to respond to the order to show cause, 

petitioner filed a single page motion to voluntarily dismiss his unexhausted claims. ECF No. 15. 

The court notes that this motion did not even identify which unexhausted claim or claims 

petitioner was seeking to dismiss from his federal habeas petition. ECF No. 15. This motion 

appears to have been filed more in an effort to comply with the court-ordered extension of time 

rather than a knowing abandonment of a potential claim for relief.

On May 7, 2018 the undersigned issued Findings and Recommendations that respondent’s 

 

2

In so doing, the court noted that “the absence of a signature is the least of petitioner’s problems 

in pursuing federal habeas relief.” ECF No. 13 at 2. 

Case 2:17-cv-00792-MCE-CKD Document 29 Filed 01/13/20 Page 2 of 8
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

motion to dismiss be granted without prejudice to petitioner filing an amended federal habeas 

application that was verified. ECF No. 17. These Findings and Recommendations emphasized 

that an amended federal habeas application should be filed using the court-approved form and 

should include petitioner’s signature.3 ECF No. 17 at 4. On June 15, 2018, the district judge 

assigned to this case adopted the Findings and Recommendations in full. ECF No. 18. 

Petitioner’s federal habeas petition was dismissed without prejudice to filing an amended petition 

within 30 days. Id. 

Following two additional extensions of time, petitioner filed the first of his pending 

motions for a stay on March 4, 2019. ECF No. 22. However, by that point, there was no federal 

habeas petition that could be stayed since it had been dismissed without prejudice on June 15, 

2018. Accordingly, the court will not address the substance of this first motion as it is moot.

Petitioner filed a second motion for a stay and abeyance on April 29, 2019 along with a 

first amended federal habeas petition. ECF Nos. 26-27. In order to understand the stay and 

abeyance options available to petitioner, the court must first determine whether the amended 

federal habeas petition contains any unexhausted claims for relief. Compare Rhines v. Weber, 

544 U.S. 269(1995); with Mena v. Long, 813 F.3d 907, 910-12. (9th Cir. 2016) (extending the 

Rhines stay and abeyance procedure to federal habeas petitions that are wholly unexhausted). 

Petitioner raises three claims for relief in his amended federal habeas application. First, petitioner 

challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction for attempted premeditated 

murder. ECF No. 26 at 5. Next, petitioner asserts that the evidence is insufficient to support his 

conviction as an aider and abettor of the shooting. ECF No. 26 at 19. Lastly, petitioner 

challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction for being a felon in

possession of ammunition. ECF No. 26 at 26. Petitioner contends that he has properly exhausted 

all three of these claims in state court, but is “seeking [a] stay and abeyance to exhaust other 

claims.” Id. at 37. 

/////

 

3 The Clerk of Court was directed to send petitioner a new habeas corpus application form. 

Case 2:17-cv-00792-MCE-CKD Document 29 Filed 01/13/20 Page 3 of 8
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

II. Motions to Stay and Abey

In his April 30, 2019 motion for a stay, petitioner specifically requests a stay and 

abeyance pursuant to Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (1995). ECF No. 27 at 1. Petitioner 

explains that he was unable to properly exhaust three additional claims for relief due to the 

ineffective assistance of his appellate lawyer and because the prison where he was housed did not 

have Spanish language legal materials. ECF No. 27 at 1-2. As a native Spanish speaker, 

petitioner “just recently” was able to locate a bilingual inmate to assist him in litigating his 

pending federal habeas petition. ECF No. 27 at 3. Petitioner seeks a stay in order to exhaust: 1)

ineffective assistance of trial/appellate counsel claims for failing to “properly investigate, object 

and preserve” issues in trial and at sentencing; 2) a sentencing challenge based on an intervening 

change in state law that has retroactive effect; and, 3) the admission of gang expert testimony in 

violation of the confrontation clause. Id. at 4-6. Petitioner later specifies that his trial counsel 

failed to object to the use of uncorroborated accomplice testimony. ECF No. 27 at 10. 

Also attached to the motion is a declaration from petitioner’s new jailhouse lawyer. ECF 

No. 27 at 20-28. This declaration indicates that he met petitioner in late February 2019 and 

agreed to assist him in this federal habeas case because petitioner has a “low IQ and grade point 

average” in addition to his inability to read and write English. ECF No. 27 at 21-23. According 

to the jailhouse lawyer, CSP-Sacramento does not have Spanish language legal materials in the 

prison library or on the Law Library Electronic Delivery System (LLEDS). ECF No. 27 at 23. 

Although no opposition was filed to petitioner’s second motion for a stay, the court 

reviewed respondent’s opposition filed on March 27, 2019. ECF No. 24. In it, respondent argues 

that petitioner cannot demonstrate any unexhausted claim has merit because petitioner had yet to 

file any amended habeas petition as ordered by the court. ECF No. 24 at 1-2. However, this

ignores the procedural history of this case including the December 4, 2017 order to show cause 

which describes the unexhausted confrontation clause challenge included in petitioner’s original 

mixed habeas petition. See ECF No. 13 (OSC); ECF No. 22 (motion for stay describing 

confrontation clause challenge that appellate counsel failed to include). Additionally, the court 

notes that respondent had the opportunity to oppose petitioner’s second motion for a stay that was 

Case 2:17-cv-00792-MCE-CKD Document 29 Filed 01/13/20 Page 4 of 8
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

5

filed after his first amended § 2254 petition, but chose not to do so.

III. Legal Standards

A federal court may stay a habeas petition and hold it in abeyance pursuant to either 

Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (1995), or King v. Ryan, 564 F.3d 1133, 1135 (9th Cir. 2009)/

Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2003)).4 Rhines and King/Kelly set out different 

procedures and impose different requirements for obtaining a stay. Under Rhines, 544 U.S. at 

277-78, a mixed federal habeas petition may be stayed only if (1) petitioner demonstrates good 

cause for the failure to have first exhausted the claims in state court, (2) the claim or claims at 

issue potentially have merit, and (3) petitioner has not been dilatory in pursuing the litigation. 

The Rhines procedure has also been applied to wholly unexhausted federal habeas petitions. See

Mena v. Long, 813 F.3d 907, 912 (9th Cir. 2016). Under King/Kelly, the court may stay a 

petition containing only exhausted claims while allowing the petitioner to proceed to state court 

to exhaust additional claims. King v. Ryan, 564 F.3d at 1135 (citing Kelly, 315 F.3d at 1070-71). 

A petitioner does not have to demonstrate good cause in order to obtain a Kelly stay. King, 564 

F.3d at 1139-1140. Once the additional claims are exhausted in state court, petitioner is allowed 

to amend his federal habeas application so long as the claims are timely-filed or “relate back” to 

the exhausted claims in the stayed petition. See King, 564 F.3d at 1140-1141; see also Mayle v. 

Felix, 545 U.S. 644, 662-64 (2005). The court may deny a request for stay under King/Kelly if 

the new claims would clearly be barred by the federal statute of limitations upon exhaustion. See

King, 564 F.3d at 1141. 

IV. Analysis

Based on the court’s review of the direct appeal opinion attached to petitioner’s initial 

federal habeas application, the undersigned finds that all of the claims in the first amended 

petition have been properly exhausted in state court. ECF No. 1 at 46-47, 54-63 (direct appeal 

opinion). Accordingly, the amended habeas petition is wholly exhausted and cannot be stayed 

pursuant to Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. at 277 (emphasizing that this procedure applies to a 

 

4 Hereinafter referred to as the “King/Kelly.”

Case 2:17-cv-00792-MCE-CKD Document 29 Filed 01/13/20 Page 5 of 8
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

6

“‘mixed petition,’ i.e., one containing both exhausted and unexhausted claims....”). To the extent 

that petitioner’s motion seeks a Rhines stay, the undersigned recommends denying the motion. 

The stay and abeyance procedure that remains available to petitioner is that outlined in 

Kelly v. Small, 564 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 2009). While petitioner does not need to demonstrate 

“good cause” for his lack of exhaustion to be entitled to a Kelly stay, he does need to be aware 

that this procedure does not guarantee federal review of his newly exhausted claims in light of the 

AEDPA’s one-year statute of limitations which has not been tolled during the pendency of this 

federal action. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d); Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167, 172-75 (2001) 

(AEDPA's statute of limitations is not tolled by the filing of federal habeas petition). Petitioner’s 

jailhouse lawyer makes several salient arguments regarding equitably tolling the statute of 

limitations in this case. However, those arguments are premature and the court will not address 

the timeliness of any claims petitioner seeks to exhaust in state court at this juncture.

5

 The court 

will address that question when, and if, petitioner seeks leave to present his newly exhausted 

claims to this court in a second amended federal petition pursuant to the third step of the Kelly

stay and abeyance procedure. See Mayle, 545 U.S. at 659 (newly exhausted claim that is 

untimely under AEDPA may be added only if it “relates back” to the original exhausted claims); 

Duncan, 533 U.S. at 172–75 (AEDPA's statute of limitations is not tolled by the filing of federal 

habeas petition); King, 564 F.3d at 1140–41 (a newly exhausted claim may be added to a stayed 

federal petition if timely under ADEPA).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for an extension of time 

to file an amended habeas petition (ECF No. 23) is denied as moot in light of his subsequently 

filed first amended federal habeas corpus petition.6

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that:

1. Petitioner’s motion for a stay filed on March 7, 2019 (ECF No. 22) be denied as moot 

 

5 The court does recognize at this point that petitioner’s lack of English language skills explains 

his inability to follow the court’s prior notice about the stay and abeyance options. See ECF No. 

13 (order to show cause dated December 4, 2017).

6 Petitioner had already been granted leave to file an amended federal habeas corpus petition by 

order dated June 15, 2018. 

Case 2:17-cv-00792-MCE-CKD Document 29 Filed 01/13/20 Page 6 of 8
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

7

since there was no pending federal habeas corpus petition to stay at that juncture. 

2. Petitioner’s motion to stay his first amended federal habeas petition (ECF Nos. 27) be

granted in part and denied in part. To the extent that the motion seeks a stay pursuant 

to Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005), the motion be denied. Petitioner’s motion 

to stay and abey this action pursuant to Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2003), 

be granted. 

3. The Clerk of Court be directed to administratively stay the first amended federal

habeas petition (ECF No. 26) until further order of the court.

4. Petitioner be directed to file a status report with the court every 90 days indicating 

what efforts he has taken to exhaust his state court remedies.

5. Petitioner be further directed to file a motion to lift the stay within 30 days of any 

decision by the California Supreme Court.

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, any party may file written 

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations. Any response to the 

objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 

parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 

appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). No 

extensions of time to file objections shall be granted in this matter.

V. Plain Language Summary for Pro Se Party

The following information is meant to explain this order in plain English and is not 

intended as legal advice. 

The undersigned is recommending that the motion to stay your federal habeas petition be 

granted to permit the exhaustion of your additional claims in state court. If you disagree with 

this recommendation you may file “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 

Recommendations” within fourteen days and explain why this conclusion is wrong. 

Case 2:17-cv-00792-MCE-CKD Document 29 Filed 01/13/20 Page 7 of 8
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

8

This recommendation and any objections will be reviewed by the district court judge 

assigned to your case. If the district judge agrees to stay your case, you will have to file a 

STATUS REPORT EVERY 90 DAYS explaining what you have done to exhaust your claims in 

state court. Once the California Supreme Court issues an order addressing any unexhausted 

claims, you must file a NOTICE OF EXHAUSTION in this court within 30 days from the date of 

the final state court decision in your case. 

Dated: January 13, 2020

12/aris0792.motion2stay.docx

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:17-cv-00792-MCE-CKD Document 29 Filed 01/13/20 Page 8 of 8