Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01809/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01809-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Reginald Blount
Petitioner
J. Soto
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 

REGINALD BLOUNT, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

J. SOTO, 

Respondent. 

No. 2:15-cv-1809 KJM AC P 

ORDER 

 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel on an application for writ of 

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

I. Procedural History 

A couple of months after filing original and first amended petitions (ECF Nos. 1, 3), 

petitioner filed a motion for extension of time to file attachments that indicated he may also be 

seeking to raise additional constitutional issues. ECF No. 7. He was ordered to file a notice 

clarifying whether he sought to amend the petition and add additional grounds for relief or 

whether he was seeking to provide additional documents without adding new claims. ECF No. 8. 

Petitioner proceeded to file the required notice, stating that he intended to add both an additional 

claim and additional documentation to support his existing claims. ECF No. 9. Upon receiving 

the clarification from petitioner, the court granted his motion for extension. ECF No. 10. 

Petitioner then filed a letter asking whether he needed to ask for a stay or file a new petition. ECF 

Case 2:15-cv-01809-KJM-AC Document 23 Filed 10/13/16 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

No. 11. The court informed petitioner that it could not tell him what action to take or how to 

manage his case, and advised him of the procedures for requesting a stay under Rhines v. Weber, 

544 U.S. 269 (2005), and Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2003). ECF No. 12. Petitioner 

was also advised of the consequences of including unexhausted claims in his amended petition. 

Id. Petitioner proceeded to file a second amended petition. ECF No. 13. He has also filed a 

document that appeared to be a copy of a California Supreme Court habeas petition (ECF No. 14) 

and a motion for extension of time (ECF No. 16). 

After reviewing the second amended petition, the court was unable to determine which 

portions were intended to state grounds for relief and which portions were intended as exhibits. It 

also appeared that petitioner was seeking a Rhines stay. ECF No. 13 at 7. To further complicate 

matters, petitioner also filed a document captioned for the California Supreme Court and labeled 

“Evidentiary Hearing Request at Federal Stage to Amend and Granted to File to Ex[h]aust.” ECF 

No. 14. Appended to the petition form were the same documents petitioner had attached to his 

second amended federal petition, minus some transcripts and the typed state habeas petitions. Id. 

It accordingly appeared that petitioner may have intended to file that document with the 

California Supreme Court, and had inadvertently filed it in this case. In his motion for extension 

of time, which was actually a request for a stay pending exhaustion of his state court remedies for 

his new claim, petitioner indicated that he had recently filed a petition in the California Supreme 

Court that was awaiting disposition. ECF No. 16. However, a review of the California Supreme 

Court’s online docket did not show any cases initiated by petitioner within the last year, making it 

appear more likely that the California Supreme Court petition at ECF No. 14 had been intended 

for that court. ECF No. 17 at 3. 

Because the court was unable to understand the grounds petitioner was asserting in his 

second amended petition, the petition was be dismissed with leave to amend. ECF No. 17. The 

court also disregarded the substantially identical document with the California Supreme Court 

caption (ECF No. 14) and denied the motion for extension (ECF No. 16). Petitioner was then 

directed to file a third amended petition and given instructions on the form of the petition and 

what he would need to show if he was requesting a stay. ECF No. 17 at 3-4. 

Case 2:15-cv-01809-KJM-AC Document 23 Filed 10/13/16 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

Petitioner has now filed a third amended petition (ECF No. 18) and has once again also 

filed a second, nearly identical petition captioned for the California Supreme Court (ECF No. 19). 

As with the previous petition captioned for the California Supreme Court, the petition at ECF 

No. 19 will be disregarded. It is unclear what petitioner intended by filing the state court 

petitions in this court, but if he is attempting to exhaust his state court remedies, he needs to 

file the state court petitions with the California Supreme Court, not with this court. 

Petitioner is reminded that he does not require permission from this court to file a petition in the 

California Supreme Court and if he is seeking to file something in the California Supreme Court, 

he should do so without delay. 

In reviewing petitioner’s third amended petition, it has come to the court’s attention that 

included with the petition is a motion for a stay pursuant to Rhines. ECF No. 18 at 7-8. 

Petitioner states that he seeks a stay under Rhines to exhaust his newly added claim of actual 

innocence. Id. Petitioner asserts that his actual innocence claim is based upon recently receiving 

two affidavits from the victim and a material witness in which they recant their trial testimony. 

Id. The affidavits state that the affiants lied on the stand at the direction of the district attorney 

and that the district attorney coerced them into lying by threatening to charge them with kidnap 

and assault of petitioner if they did not testify as he wanted. Id. at 202, 207. It appears that 

petitioner’s claim for actual innocence is in fact a claim of prosecutorial misconduct, as he asserts 

that he was the victim of “prosecutorial vindictiveness” and that his Sixth and Fourteenth 

Amendment rights were violated when the prosecution coerced and threatened the victim and 

witness to provide testimony against him and concealed their original, favorable testimony. Id. at 

5, 18-19, 99-109. 

In order to obtain a stay and abeyance of a mixed federal petition under Rhines, petitioner 

must show that (1) there is good cause for failing to have first exhausted the claims in state court, 

(2) that the claim or claims at issue potentially have merit, and (3) that there has been no 

indication that petitioner has intentionally delayed pursuing the litigation. 544 U.S. at 277-78. 

Petitioner asserts that he did not receive the affidavits until after all of his state court proceedings 

had concluded. ECF No. 18 at 5, 8. However, the victim and witness affidavits are both dated 

Case 2:15-cv-01809-KJM-AC Document 23 Filed 10/13/16 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

November 12, 2012 (id. at 204, 210), approximately two months after the conclusion of 

petitioner’s trial (id. at 1, 140-41). Before the undersigned can issue a recommendation on 

petitioner’s request for a Rhines stay, petitioner must provide the court with a sworn declaration 

or affidavit addressing the issues of good cause and intentional delay. Specifically, petitioner’s 

sworn statement must advise the court of the following: 

1. When did petitioner first become aware of Avery Blount and David Beckhorn’s 

affidavits? 

2. When did petitioner first come into possession of the affidavits? 

3. Who was in possession of the affidavits before petitioner received them and what 

happened to the affidavits after they were signed in 2012? 

4. If there was any delay between when petitioner found out about the affidavits and 

when he received them, what was the cause of the delay and what steps did petitioner 

take to obtain the affidavits? 

If petitioner does not file an affidavit or declaration addressing these items, the court will 

recommend denial of his motion for stay and proceed to screen the third amended petition. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. The document at ECF No. 19 shall be disregarded. 

 2. Petitioner must file an affidavit or declaration advising the court of the following: 

a. When did petitioner first become aware of Avery Blount and David Beckhorn’s 

affidavits? 

b. When did petitioner first come into possession of the affidavits? 

c. Who was in possession of the affidavits before petitioner received them and what 

happened to the affidavits after they were signed in 2012? 

d. If there was any delay between when petitioner found out about the affidavits and 

when he received them, what was the cause of the delay and what steps did 

petitioner take to obtain the affidavits? 

//// 

//// 

Case 2:15-cv-01809-KJM-AC Document 23 Filed 10/13/16 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

3. Failure to submit an affidavit or declaration addressing these issues will result in a 

recommendation that the motion for stay be denied and the court will proceed with screening the 

third amended petition. 

DATED: October 13, 2016 

Case 2:15-cv-01809-KJM-AC Document 23 Filed 10/13/16 Page 5 of 5