Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03906/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03906-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John G. Hedderman
Petitioner
San Mateo County Sheriff
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN G. HEDDERMAN,

Petitioner,

v.

SAN MATEO COUNTY SHERIFF,

Respondent.

Case No. 14-cv-03906-VC (PR)

ORDER FOR CLARIFICATION FROM 

PETITIONER RE: EXHAUSTION

Petitioner John Hedderman has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his 

conviction, which was entered pursuant to a plea of no contest. In his petition, Hedderman asserts 

eight claims. Respondent argues that claim five, for violation of Hedderman's right to a speedy 

trial or sentencing, and claim seven, for violation of Hedderman's due process right to appeal his 

plea bargain, are unexhausted. In his traverse, Hedderman neither addresses the exhaustion issue

nor reasserts these claims. Therefore, he may be voluntarily dismissing them. However, he must 

specify his wish to dismiss them so that his petition will not be a mixed petition. If he wishes to 

exhaust them, he must specify that as well.

Prisoners in state custody who wish to challenge their conviction or sentence in federal 

habeas proceedings 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). The exhaustion requirement is satisfied only if the federal claim has 

been “fairly presented” to the state courts. Peterson v. Lampert, 319 F.3d 1153, 1155-56 (9th Cir. 

2003) (en banc). If Hedderman’s federal petition contains both exhausted and unexhausted 

claims, it is a “mixed” petition. Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 277 (2005). The Court cannot 

Case 3:14-cv-03906-VC Document 21 Filed 05/08/15 Page 1 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

adjudicate the merits of a mixed petition. Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 522 (1982); 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254(b)(2).

To remedy this situation, Hedderman is granted the opportunity to elect either to proceed 

with only his exhausted claims, or to try to exhaust the unexhausted claims before having this 

Court consider all his claims. Accordingly, Hedderman must choose whether he wants to –

(1) dismiss the unexhausted claims and proceed with only the exhausted claims, or 

(2) dismiss this action and return to state court to exhaust all claims before filing a new 

federal petition presenting all of his claims, or 

(3) file a motion for a stay of these proceedings while he exhausts his unexhausted claims

in the California Supreme Court. 

Hedderman is cautioned that each option has risks. If he chooses option (1) and goes 

forward with only his exhausted claims, he may face dismissal of any later-filed petition. See 28 

U.S.C. § 2244(b). If he chooses option (2), dismissing this action and returning to state court to 

exhaust all claims before filing a new federal petition, his new federal petition might be rejected as 

time-barred. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). Under option (3), his federal case will be administratively 

closed while he is diligently seeking relief in state court. If he chooses option (3), he must file a 

motion in this Court to obtain a stay and, if the motion is granted, must act diligently to file a 

petition with his unexhausted claims in the California Supreme Court, obtain a decision from the 

California Supreme Court on his unexhausted claims, and file a motion to reopen his case and 

proceed with his petition in this Court. 

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. Rhines v. 

Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 277-78 (2005).

1

 

 

1

There is an alternate stay procedure for a petitioner who has some unexhausted claims he wants to 

present in his federal habeas action, but it often is unhelpful because statute of limitations 

problems may exist for claims that are not sufficiently related to the claims in the original petition. 

Under the procedure outlined in Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2003) overruled on other 

grounds by Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143 (9th Cir. 2007), “(1) a petitioner amends his petition 

to delete any unexhausted claims; (2) the court stays and holds in abeyance the amended, fully 

Case 3:14-cv-03906-VC Document 21 Filed 05/08/15 Page 2 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Any stay must be limited in time to avoid indefinite delay. Id. Reasonable time limits 

would be 30 days to get to state court, as long as necessary for the state court to adjudicate the 

claims, and 30 days to get back to federal court (if necessary) after the final ruling on the claims 

by the state court. Id. at 278; Kelly, 315 F.3d at 1071. If Hedderman moves for a stay, he must 

show that he satisfies the Rhines criteria or must comply with the King/Kelly requirements.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court orders as follows:

1. Within twenty-one days from the date of this order, Hedderman must file a declaration 

clarifying how he wishes to proceed with his unexhausted claims. If he chooses option three, he 

must concurrently file a motion for a stay of this action while he exhausts his unexhausted claims 

in state court. 

2. If Hedderman does not respond within twenty-one days, the Court will assume that he 

wishes to voluntarily dismiss claims five and seven and they will be dismissed from the petition.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

VINCE CHHABRIA

United States District Judge

 

exhausted petition, allowing the petitioner the opportunity to proceed to state court to exhaust the 

deleted claims; and (3) the petitioner later amends his petition and re-attaches the newly-exhausted 

claims to the original petition.” King v. Ryan, 564 F.3d 1133, 1135 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Kelly, 

315 F.3d at 1070-71). A petitioner seeking to avail himself of the Kelly three-step procedure is not 

required to show good cause as under Rhines, but rather must show that the amendment of any 

newly exhausted claims back into the petition satisfies both Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644, 655 

(2005), by sharing a “common core of operative facts” and Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167 

(2001), by complying with the statute of limitations. King, 564 F.3d at 1141-43.

May 8, 2015

Case 3:14-cv-03906-VC Document 21 Filed 05/08/15 Page 3 of 3