Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-04937/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-04937-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Tommy Felker
Respondent
Maher Conrad Suarez
Petitioner

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MAHER C. SUAREZ,

Petitioner,

 v.

TOMMY FELKER, Warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 08-04937 CW (PR)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO GRANT A

“STAY AND ABEYANCE”

On October 28, 2008, Petitioner Maher C. Suarez, a state

prisoner, filed a pro se Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On June 22, 2009, the Court issued

an Order to Show Cause why the writ should not be granted on the

two cognizable claims raised: (1) improper admission of prior bad

acts, and (2) ineffective assistance of counsel. On August 27,

2009, Respondent filed an Answer. On October 19, 2009, Petitioner

filed a Traverse. 

On May 10, 2010, Petitioner filed a request to stay and hold

in abeyance the federal proceedings. Petitioner wishes to raise

claims of inconsistent verdicts and, relatedly, ineffective

assistance of counsel in this federal proceeding, but he has not

yet exhausted either claim in state court. Petitioner asserts that

he did not receive his trial transcripts until February 11, 2008,

Case 4:08-cv-04937-CW Document 10 Filed 08/03/10 Page 1 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

and just by luck, in January 2010, Petitioner learned about a

potential due process challenge based on inconsistent verdicts. 

Petitioner concedes that his AEDPA statute of limitations has run

and requests a stay under Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 265 (2005).

DISCUSSION

Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of

1996 (AEDPA), codified under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, prisoners in state

custody who wish to challenge in federal habeas proceedings either

the fact or length of their confinement are first required to

exhaust state judicial remedies 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); Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 515–16 (1982). 

District courts have inherent authority to issue stays where a stay

would be a proper exercise of discretion. Rhines, 544 U.S. at 276. 

AEDPA does not strip district courts of that discretion; it merely

limits it. Id.

There are two approaches for analyzing a motion for a

stay-and-abeyance, depending on whether the petition is mixed or

fully exhausted. See King v. Ryan, 546 F.3d 1133, 1135-36 (9th

Cir. 2009). If the petitioner seeks a stay-and-abeyance order for

a mixed petition that contains both exhausted and unexhausted

claims, the request can be analyzed under the standard announced by

the Supreme Court in Rhines. See id. at 1139-1140. If, however,

the petition is fully exhausted, and what the petitioner seeks is a

stay-and-abeyance order to exhaust claims not raised in the current

federal petition, the approach set out in Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d

1063 (9th Cir. 2003), overruled on other grounds by Robbins v.

Case 4:08-cv-04937-CW Document 10 Filed 08/03/10 Page 2 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Carey, 481 F.3d 1143 (9th Cir. 2007), applies. See King, 546 F.3d

at 1139-1140.

Here, because Petitioner’s petition is not mixed but, instead,

a fully exhausted petition, the Rhines procedure is inapplicable. 

Thus, the only avenue available to Petitioner to stay a fully

exhausted petition is explained in Kelly and King. The Kelly

procedure begins by allowing a petitioner to delete any unexhausted

claims from his mixed petition. See King, 546 F.3d at 1135-36. 

Then, the district court would stay and hold the fully exhausted

petition in abeyance while the petitioner exhausted the deleted

claims in state court. See id. Once the deleted claims are

exhausted, the petitioner would amend his stayed petition to reattach the newly exhausted claims. See id.

Here, Petitioner’s biggest hurdle under the Kelly procedure is

to file his amended petition within the original one-year statute

of limitations period. See id. at 1140-1141. Petitions filed by

prisoners challenging non-capital state convictions or sentences

must be filed within one year of the latest date on which: (A) the

judgment became final after the conclusion of direct review or the

time passed for seeking direct review; (B) an impediment to filing

an application created by unconstitutional state action was

removed, if such action prevented the petitioner from filing;

(C) the constitutional right asserted was initially recognized by

the Supreme Court, if the right was newly recognized by the Supreme

Court and made retroactive to cases on collateral review; or

(D) the factual predicate of the claim could have been discovered

through the exercise of due diligence. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A)-

(D). 

Case 4:08-cv-04937-CW Document 10 Filed 08/03/10 Page 3 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Here, Petitioner is challenging his 2005 conviction for first

degree murder. The California Supreme Court denied a petition for

review on March 14, 2007. Doc. 5, Resp.'s Ex. G. His conviction

became final after the time passed for seeking direct review in the

United States Supreme Court. Patterson v. Stewart, 251 F.3d 1243,

1246 (9th Cir. 2001). Thus, Petitioner's conviction became final

on June 13, 2007 and began to run the following day on June 14,

2007. Id. Absent tolling, Petitioner's federal petition, filed on

October 14, 2008, see Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 270 (1988), is

untimely. 

Petitioner filed a state habeas petition in California Supreme

Court on April 16, 2008, which was denied on September 17, 2008. 

Doc. 5, Resp.’s Exs. H, I. Adding the days during which Petitioner

was properly seeking collateral review, i.e., 154 days,

Petitioner's statute of limitations was tolled until November 14,

2008. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2).

Thus, Petitioner's current federal petition is timely. 

However, this petition contains claims that have been fully

exhausted. The claims that Petitioner now wishes to exhaust in

state court have not previously been raised in any court. In his

motion, Petitioner concedes that these "new" claims are barred by

the statute of limitations. Mot. at 4. 

The Ninth Circuit has clearly stated that a stay-and-abeyance

order under Kelly does not protect a petitioner's unexhausted

claims from untimeliness. See King, 564 F.3d at 1141. Petitioner

argues that these "new" claims relate back to the ones in his

pending petition. See id. In order for claims to relate back,

however, a petitioner must show that the unexhausted claims share a

Case 4:08-cv-04937-CW Document 10 Filed 08/03/10 Page 4 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

G:\PRO-SE\CW\HC.08\Suarez4937.denystay.wpd 5

"common core of operative facts" with those exhausted claims in his

petition. See Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644, 659 (2005). A new

claim does not "relate back" to the filing of the original petition

simply because it arises from "the same trial, conviction, or

sentence." Id. at 662-64.

Petitioner raised two exhausted claims in his current federal

petition: (1) the admission of uncharged bad acts violated his

federal due process, and (2) counsel was ineffective for failing to

make a more specific objection to the admission of uncharged bad

acts. Petitioner now wishes to exhaust two more claims: 

(1) inconsistent verdicts, and (2) counsel was ineffective for

failing to raise the issue of inconsistent verdicts. Not only does

it appear that these claims were, or should have been, known or

discovered at the time Petitioner filed his original petition, but

there is no "common core of operative facts" between the exhausted

and unexhausted claims which would allow the new claims to relate

back. It therefore appears that Petitioner's unexhausted claims

would be barred by the statute of limitations. Petitioner does not

provide a sufficient reason for the court to stay these proceedings

and hold his petition in abeyance. 

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s motion for a stay.

CONCLUSION

Petitioner’s motion for a stay (Doc. #9) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 8/3/2010 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:08-cv-04937-CW Document 10 Filed 08/03/10 Page 5 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

G:\PRO-SE\CW\HC.08\Suarez4937.denystay.wpd 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MAHER C SUAREZ,

Plaintiff,

 v.

TOMMY FELKER et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV08-04937 CW 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District

Court, Northern District of California.

That on August 3, 2010, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said

copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing

said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery

receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Maher Conrad Suarez V82078

High Desert State Prison

P.O. Box 3030

Susanville, CA 96127

Dated: August 3, 2010

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Nikki Riley, Deputy Clerk

Case 4:08-cv-04937-CW Document 10 Filed 08/03/10 Page 6 of 6