Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_10-cv-02050/USCOURTS-cand-4_10-cv-02050-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
J. Adams
Respondent
Onesimo Garcia
Petitioner

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ONESIMO GARCIA,

Petitioner,

 v.

J. ADAMS, Warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 10-02050 SBA (PR)

ORDER FOR PETITIONER TO SHOW

CAUSE

Petitioner, a state prisoner, filed this pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner also seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The petition contains three

claims, one of which Petitioner asserts was presented to the California Supreme Court; the second

(ineffective assistance of appellate counsel) and third (cumulative error) claims have not been

presented to any state court. Petitioner admits that he did not exhaust his state remedies as to the

two aforementioned claims before filing this petition. 

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

This Court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus "in behalf of a person in

custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in

violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Rose v.

Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). 

A district court shall "award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause

why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant or

person detained is not entitled thereto." 28 U.S.C. § 2243. Summary dismissal is appropriate only

where the allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently

frivolous or false. Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990) (quoting Blackledge v.

Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75-76 (1977)). 

Case 4:10-cv-02050-SBA Document 6 Filed 08/25/10 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

B. Legal Claims

Prisoners in state custody who wish to challenge collaterally in federal habeas proceedings

either the fact or length of their confinement are first required to exhaust state judicial remedies,

either on direct appeal or through collateral proceedings, by presenting the highest state court

available with a fair opportunity to rule on the merits of each and every claim they seek to raise in

federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), (c); Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 515-16 (1982)

As mentioned above, Petitioner did not present two of his claims to the state supreme court

for review, either in a petition for review or in a state petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Therefore,

his federal petition is mixed, that is, contains both exhausted and unexhausted issues. The general

rule is that a federal district court must dismiss a federal habeas petition containing any claim as to

which state remedies have not been exhausted. Rose, 455 U.S. at 522. Alternatively, the court may

stay mixed petitions to allow the petitioner to exhaust in state court, Rhines v. Webber, 544 U.S.

269, 277 (2005), or petitioner may amend to delete the unexhausted issue, Jefferson v. Budge, 419

F.3d 1013, 1016 (9th Cir. 2005). Petitioner will be ordered to show cause why this petition should

not be treated as mixed. 

If Petitioner is unable to show cause why this petition should not be treated as mixed, i.e., if

he cannot show that the two claims are exhausted, he will be afforded the opportunity to elect one of

three choices: (1) to dismiss the petition with an eye to exhausting and then filing a new petition

containing all claims; or (2) to amend to delete the unexhausted claims and proceed with the

exhausted one; or (3) to ask for a stay to allow exhaustion, see Rhines, 544 U.S. at 277-78. 

In Rhines, the Supreme Court discussed the stay-and-abeyance procedure, explaining that a stay and

abeyance "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," the claims are not meritless, and there

are no intentionally dilatory litigation tactics by the petitioner. Id. If the stay is granted, the

petitioner's newly-exhausted claims will be not barred by the statute of limitations, because those

claims remain pending in federal court. King v. Ryan, 564 F.3d 1133, 1139, 1140 (9th Cir. 2009).

By contrast, where a petitioner deletes his unexhausted claims and seeks a stay of a fullyexhausted petition while he returns to state court to exhaust the unexhausted claims, no showing of

Case 4:10-cv-02050-SBA Document 6 Filed 08/25/10 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

G:\PRO-SE\SBA\HC.10\Garcia2050.OSC-P.wpd3

good cause is required to stay the petition. Id. Once the claims are exhausted, however, the

petitioner must amend his petition to add the newly-exhausted claims; importantly, such amendment

must take place within the one-year statute of limitation set forth at 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1), or the

newly-exhausted claims will be dismissed as untimely. Id. at 1140-41.

CONCLUSION 

Petitioner's application to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. Petitioner shall show

cause why this petition would not be treated as mixed within thirty (30) days from the date of this

Order. If he concedes it is mixed he may elect among the three options set out above. If he elects

option three and asks for a stay to exhaust without deleting his unexhausted claims, he should

address the Rhines requirements. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 8/25/10 

SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:10-cv-02050-SBA Document 6 Filed 08/25/10 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

G:\PRO-SE\SBA\HC.10\Garcia2050.OSC-P.wpd4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ONESIMO GARCIA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

J ADAMS et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV10-02050 SBA 

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 August 25, 2010, 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.

Onesimo Garcia F-86310

Pelican Bay State Prison

PO Box 7500

Crescent City, CA 95532

Dated: August 25, 2010

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: LISA R CLARK, Deputy Clerk

Case 4:10-cv-02050-SBA Document 6 Filed 08/25/10 Page 4 of 4