Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01136/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01136-6/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Evans
Respondent
Teiquon Lewis
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

 This is the date on which the petition was filed in this court following transfer from the 1

United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TEIQUON LEWIS,

Petitioner, No. CIV S 05-1136 GEB PAN P

vs.

EVANS, Warden,

Respondent. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for a writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner challenges his 1999 conviction on four counts of

robbery, one count of attempted robbery, with findings of personal use of a deadly weapon,

personal use of a firearm, infliction of great bodily injury, two prior convictions and one prior

prison term, and the sentence of 150 years to life in prison imposed thereon under California’s

Three Strikes Law. 

Petitioner raises several claims in his petition. His third claim for relief is that his

constitutional rights were violated by an illegal search and seizure of evidence. See Petition for

Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed June 8, 2005 at 8.) In the answer filed January 18, 2006, 1

respondent contends this claim is unexhausted. On February 21, 2006, petitioner filed a

Case 2:05-cv-01136-GEB-EFB Document 31 Filed 05/17/06 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

 Petitioner styles his request a request to exhaust state court remedies. Petitioner does not 2

need permission from this court to present his claims to the state courts. He also, however, requests

permission to exhaust the claim “before dismissing [the claim] for failure to exhaust,” (Petitioner’s

Request for Leave to Exhaust, filed February 21, 2006, at 1), and the court therefore construes the

request as one to stay consideration of the petition pending exhaustion of claim 3. 

 Ordinarily a mixed habeas petition containing both exhausted and unexhausted claims must

3

be dismissed with leave to amend. See Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (1982). However, an

unexhausted claim that is plainly without merit may be denied. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2). 

2

document styled “Request for Leave to Exhaust State Court Remedies.” The court construes this

document as a request for a stay of this action pending exhaustion of state remedies with respect

to claim three of the petition. 

2

In Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005), the United States Supreme Court held

that a “district court would abuse its discretion if it were to grant . . . a stay when . . .

unexhausted claims are plainly meritless.” Rhines, at 277. Federal courts are precluded from

reviewing on habeas corpus Fourth Amendment claims arising from alleged illegal searches and

seizures where the state provides “an opportunity for full and fair litigation” of such claims. 

Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 482, 96 S.Ct. 3037, 49 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1976). The rule announced

in Stone v. Powell precludes this court’s consideration of petitioner’s third claim for relief. For

that reason, petitioner’s request for a stay pending exhaustion of state remedies as to his third

claim for relief should be denied.3

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that petitioner's

February 21, 2006 request, construed as a request for stay pending exhaustion of state court

remedies, be denied. 

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 twenty

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.” The parties are advised that

Case 2:05-cv-01136-GEB-EFB Document 31 Filed 05/17/06 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

3

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).

DATED: May 16, 2006.

12

lewi1136.stayfr

Case 2:05-cv-01136-GEB-EFB Document 31 Filed 05/17/06 Page 3 of 3