Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01734/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01734-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Rick Hill
Respondent
Xiong Yeng
Petitioner

Document Text:

1

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2254. The matter has been referred to the Magistrate Judge 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rules 302 through 304. 

Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s motion for a stay of the 

proceedings filed by Petitioner on June 6, 2014.

I. Background

Petitioner attacks his sentence of fifteen years to life with 

XIONG YENG,

 Petitioner,

v.

RICK HILL, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:13-cv-01734-AWI-BAM-HC

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S MOTION 

FOR A STAY (DOC. 12)

ORDER STAYING THE PROCEEDINGS 

PENDING EXHAUSTION OF STATE COURT 

REMEDIES

ORDER DIRECTING PETITIONER TO FILE

AN INITIAL STATUS REPORT IN SIXTY 

(60) DAYS, THEN FILE A STATUS 

REPORT EVERY NINETY (90) DAYS

THEREAFTER

ORDER DIRECTING PETITIONER TO FILE 

AN AMENDED PETITION NO LATER THAN 

THIRTY (30) DAYS AFTER COMPLETING 

EXHAUSTION 

Case 1:13-cv-01734-AWI-BAM Document 15 Filed 11/04/14 Page 1 of 4
2

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

the possibility of parole for attempted murder with use of a 

firearm, plus a concurrent term of seven years for shooting into an 

inhabited vehicle. Petitioner was convicted as an accessory, and he 

challenges the sentence as unlawful and unconstitutional because it 

is based on liability greater than that of the principal, who 

pursuant to a plea agreement was convicted of shooting into an 

inhabited vehicle. Petitioner initially alleged the following 

claims: 1) trial counsel was ineffective in failing to object to 

and otherwise defend against the unlawful sentence (id. at 35)); 2) 

Petitioner’s sentence violated Cal. Pen. Code §§ 647, 689, 187, and 

12022, Cal. Evid. Code § 1111, and art. I, § 17 and the equal 

protection and due process provisions of the California constitution 

(id. at 41-42, 66-70); 3) Petitioner was subjected to an excessive 

and disproportionate sentence in violation of the Eighth Amendment 

because he was innocent of causing a death or of gross negligence, 

and his sentence was tantamount to a sentence of life without the 

possibility of parole given his life expectancy of sixty-four years, 

which is constitutionally prohibited for non-homicide offenses, (id.

at 49-62, 70, 77-79); 4) principles of equity, equal protection, and 

due process mandate amendment of Petitioner’s sentence (id. at 66-

70); and 5) there was insufficient evidence that the principal 

committed attempted murder, and the court made no finding that the 

principal committed attempted murder (id. at 71-76). 

On October 29, 2014, Petitioner’s second set of claims were 

dismissed without leave to amend because they were based solely on 

state law. The matter was referred back to the Magistrate Judge for 

consideration of Petitioner’s motion for a stay. 

In the motion, Petitioner seeks a stay to “federalize” his

Case 1:13-cv-01734-AWI-BAM Document 15 Filed 11/04/14 Page 2 of 4
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

dismissed claims on the ground that the federal and state law are 

similar, and he can exhaust state court remedies as to analogous 

federal claims and then seek to amend the petition to add the new 

claims. (Docs. 12 & 13.)

II. Motion for a Stay

Petitioner’s second claim or, more accurately, set of claims, 

includes challenges to his sentence on some grounds that are based 

solely on state statutory law, such as alleged violations of Cal. 

Pen. Code §§ 647, 689, 187, and 12022, and Cal. Evid. Code § 1111. 

As to these claims, amendment would be futile because state law 

could never provide the basis of a tenable federal claim. 

Petitioner’s second set of claims also includes challenges based on 

art. I, § 17, the equal protection clause, and the due process 

provisions of the California constitution. It appears that 

Petitioner contemplates raising claims based on analogous provisions 

of the Federal Constitution after exhausting state court remedies. 

Petitioner seeks to proceed pursuant to the three-step 

procedure under Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2003)

(Kelly), in which 1) the petitioner files an amended petition 

deleting the unexhausted claims; 2) the district court stays and 

holds in abeyance the fully exhausted petition; and 3) the 

petitioner later amends the petition to include the newly exhausted 

claims. See, King v. Ryan, 564 F.3d 1133, 1135 (9th Cir. 2009). 

However, the amendment is only allowed if the additional claims are 

timely. Id. at 1140-41. 

In this case, Petitioner meets the qualifications for a Kelly

stay. The petition presently contains no unexhausted claims, so the 

first step of the Kelly procedure is complete. Therefore, the Court 

Case 1:13-cv-01734-AWI-BAM Document 15 Filed 11/04/14 Page 3 of 4
4

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

will stay the proceedings according to the second step of the Kelly

procedure. Petitioner will be instructed to file status reports of 

his progress through the state courts. Once the California Supreme 

Court renders its opinion, provided the opinion is a denial of 

relief, Petitioner must file an amended petition including all of 

his exhausted claims. He is forewarned that claims may be precluded 

as untimely if they do not comport with the statute of limitations 

set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).

III. Disposition

In accordance with the foregoing, it is ORDERED that:

1) Petitioner’s motion for a stay of the proceedings is GRANTED 

pursuant to Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2003); and 

2) The proceedings are STAYED pending exhaustion of state 

remedies; and

3) Petitioner is DIRECTED to file an initial status report of 

his progress in the state courts no later than sixty (60) days after 

the date of service of this order, and then to file periodic status 

reports every ninety (90) days thereafter until exhaustion is 

complete; and

4) No later than thirty (30) days after service of the final 

order of the California Supreme Court, Petitioner MUST FILE an 

amended petition in this Court including all exhausted claims.

Petitioner is forewarned that failure to comply with this order 

will result in the Court’s vacating the stay.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 3, 2014 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01734-AWI-BAM Document 15 Filed 11/04/14 Page 4 of 4