Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01132/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01132-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jerry Galindo Martinez
Petitioner
People of the State of California
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JERRY GALINDO MARTINEZ,

Petitioner,

v.

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF 

CALIFORNIA,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:14-cv-01132 LJO MJS (HC)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY 

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS 

CORPUS

[Doc. 5]

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

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has declined Magistrate Judge 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (ECF No. 6.)

Petitioner was convicted of stalking, attempting to dissuade a witness, criminal 

threats, disobeying a court order and resisting an officer. Petitioner was sentenced to an 

aggregate term of seventeen years and four months. He appealed his conviction to the 

California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District and to the California Supreme Court.

The state courts affirmed the judgment to the above referenced counts. (Pet. at 2-3.) 

On July 21, 2014, Petitioner filed the instant petition. Petitioner noted in the 

petition that his first claim, for ineffective assistance of counsel, had not been exhausted. 

Case 1:14-cv-01132-LJO-MJS Document 10 Filed 10/24/14 Page 1 of 5
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

The Court issued an order to show cause why the petition should not be dismissed for 

failure to exhaust state remedies. (ECF No. 4.) In response, on August 18, 2014, 

Petitioner filed a motion to stay the proceedings. (Mot. to Stay, ECF No. 5.) Petitioner 

asks the Court to stay his petition while he proceeds to attempt to exhaust his state court 

claims with respect to claim one of the petition. For the reasons explained below, 

Petitioner's motion to stay must be granted.

I. LEGAL STANDARD

The exhaustion of available state remedies is a prerequisite to a federal court's 

consideration of claims presented in habeas corpus proceedings. See Rose v. Lundy, 

455 U.S. 509, 102 S.Ct. 1198, 71 L. Ed. 2d 379 (1982); 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b). A petitioner 

satisfies the exhaustion requirement by providing the highest state court with a full and 

fair opportunity to consider all claims before presenting them to the federal court. Picard 

v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276, 92 S. Ct. 509, 30 L. Ed. 2d 438 (1971); Middleton v. 

Cupp, 768 F.2d 1083, 1086 (9th Cir. 1985).

II. ANALYSIS

Petitioner has requested to stay this case and hold it in abeyance to allow him to 

attempt to exhaust claim one in state court. (See ECF No. 5.) Petitioner noted that he 

had problems with the state superior court receiving his petition, and was attempting to 

continue to pursue and exhaust his state remedies.

A. Stay and Abeyance

A court may stay a petition and hold it in abeyance pursuant to either Kelly v. 

Small, 315 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2002), or Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 125 S. Ct. 

1528, 161 L. Ed. 2d 440 (2005). See King v. Ryan, 564 F.3d 1133, 1135 (9th Cir. 2009). 

Kelly and Rhines set out different procedures and requirements for imposing a stay. 

Under Kelly, the petitioner amends his petition to delete any unexhausted claims. The 

court then stays and holds in abeyance the amended, fully exhausted petition, allowing 

the petitioner the opportunity to proceed to state court to exhaust the deleted claims. Id.

(citing Kelly, 315 F.3d at 1070-71.) Later, the petitioner amends his petition to add the 

Case 1:14-cv-01132-LJO-MJS Document 10 Filed 10/24/14 Page 2 of 5
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

newly-exhausted claims to the original petition. Id. Under Rhines, a petitioner must meet 

three pre-conditions for a stay of a mixed petition: (1) a finding of good cause for 

petitioner's failure to exhaust all his claims before filing his habeas action; (2) a finding 

that the unexhausted claims are potentially meritorious; and (3) no indication that the 

petitioner engaged in intentionally dilatory tactics. Rhines, 544 U.S. at 278. If all three 

preconditions exist, the court should stay the habeas case and hold it in abeyance, 

leaving the mixed petition intact while the petitioner returns to state court to present his 

unexhausted claims.

Rhines does not go into detail as to what constitutes good cause for failure to 

exhaust, and the Ninth Circuit has provided no clear guidance beyond holding that the 

test is less stringent than an "extraordinary circumstances" standard. Jackson v. Roe, 

425 F.3d 654, 661-62 (9th Cir. 2005). Several district courts have concluded that the 

standard is more generous than the showing needed for "cause" to excuse a procedural 

default. See, e.g., Rhines v. Weber, 408 F. Supp. 2d 844, 849 (D.S.D. 2005) (applying 

the Supreme Court's mandate on remand). This view finds support in Pace v. 

DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 125 S.Ct. 1807, 161 L. Ed. 2d 669 (2005), where the 

Supreme Court acknowledged that a petitioner's "reasonable confusion" about the 

timeliness of his federal petition would generally constitute good cause for his failure to 

exhaust state remedies before filing his federal petition. 544 U.S. at 416-17.

However, in Wooten v. Kirkland, 540 F.3d 1019 (9th Cir. 2008), the Ninth Circuit 

ruled that petitioner did not show good cause by arguing that he was "under the 

impression" that his counsel had raised all claims before the state court of appeal. 

Wooten, 540 F.3d at 1024. The Ninth Circuit explained that finding good cause in that 

argument "would render stay-and-abey orders routine" and "would run afoul of Rhines

and its instruction that district courts should only stay mixed petitions in 'limited 

circumstances.'" Wooten, 540 F.3d at 1024.

Petitioner provides inadequate justification for not presenting the claim to the 

California Supreme Court. Petitioner provides documentation with his petition reflecting 

Case 1:14-cv-01132-LJO-MJS Document 10 Filed 10/24/14 Page 3 of 5
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

potential confusion over the lost petition filed with the Merced County Superior Court in 

January, 2014. However, Petitioner has presented no information why he could not have 

continued to proceed to exhaust his state claims before filing this petition. This Court is 

bound to find that he has not shown good cause for a stay under Rhines. However, the 

Kelly procedure, which has remained available even after the Supreme Court's ruling in 

Rhines, does not require a showing of good cause. King, 564 F.3d at 1140. The Court 

must still deny a request for a stay and abeyance under Kelly if the new claims are 

facially without merit and therefore cannot be added to the existing habeas petition after 

they are exhausted in state court. King, 564 F.3d at 1141.

The Court finds that Petitioner's unexhausted claim – ineffective assistance of 

counsel - presents, at this stage, a facially meritorious claim. Under the Kelly procedure, 

Petitioner should have the opportunity to file an amended petition that does not include 

unexhausted claims.1If he does so, the Court will impose a stay to allow him to exhaust 

the claims in state court. If he chooses not to amend his petition, the Court will deny his 

motion to stay and dismiss the petition without prejudice for failure to exhaust all claims, 

with leave to file an amended petition. See Anthony v. Cambra, 236 F.3d 568, 574 (9th 

Cir. 2000). Petitioner is forewarned that such a dismissal may adversely affect the 

timeliness of the petition in relation to the one year statute of limitations under the 

Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act ("AEDPA").

As Petitioner may be able to exhaust his claim and subsequently add it to the 

petition through amendment, the Court will stay the proceedings under Kelly. The Court 

declines at this time to decide if the claim, once exhausted, can properly be added to the 

federal petition within AEDPA's one year limitation period. However, after Petitioner 

 

1

The Court admonishes Petitioner to familiarize himself with Local Rule 220, which governs the 

amendment of pleadings. If he chooses to file an amended complaint, the Court will examine it according 

to the same screening standards that applied to his original petition. In addition, Petitioner is informed that 

the Court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to make Petitioner's amended petition complete. Local 

Rule 220 requires that an amended pleading be complete in itself, without reference to any prior pleading. 

See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967) (As general rule, an amended complaint or petition 

supersedes the original.).

Case 1:14-cv-01132-LJO-MJS Document 10 Filed 10/24/14 Page 4 of 5
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

amends his petition to add any newly exhausted claims, Respondent will be given an 

opportunity to challenge the timeliness of the claims asserted in the amended petition.

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

1) Petitioner's motion for stay (Doc. 5) be granted pursuant to Kelly v. Small, 315 

F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2002) and King v. Ryan, 564 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 2009), and 

the instant action be administratively stayed pursuant to Kelly and King;

2) Petitioner is ordered to file an amended petition containing only claims already 

exhausted within thirty (30) days of the date of service of this order;

3) Petitioner is directed to file a motion to lift the stay within 30 days of the 

California Supreme Court issuing a final order resolving Petitioner's unexhausted 

claims; and

4) Petitioner is directed to file an amended habeas petition containing all claims, 

including newly exhausted claims, with his motion to lift the stay.

Petitioner is forewarned that failure to comply with this Order may result the 

dismissal of the petition. Local Rule 110.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 24, 2014 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01132-LJO-MJS Document 10 Filed 10/24/14 Page 5 of 5