Jones v. Madden
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Andrew G. Schopler (author)
Analysis
Petitioner Ryan Jones moved to withdraw his unexhausted habeas claims and stay the federal proceedings to allow for state court exhaustion. The Magistrate Judge recommended granting the motions, dismissing the unexhausted claims, and staying the remainder of the petition.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting Petitioner's unopposed motions for withdrawal and abeyance“Jones’s unopposed motions for withdrawal and abeyance are GRANTED;” | agree with court The court correctly applied the three-part test for withdrawal and abeyance established in King v. Ryan. The petitioner voluntarily withdrew the unexhausted claims, requested a stay, and promised to seek leave to amend upon exhaustion. The court noted that good cause for failure to exhaust is not required, and that dismissal would likely bar refiling due to the statute of limitations, making the stay appropriate. |
Dismissing Petitioner's unexhausted Claims 3-6“Jones’s unexhausted Claims 3-6 are DISMISSED;” | agree with court This is a procedural mechanism of the 'withdrawal and abeyance' doctrine. The claims are dismissed without prejudice to allow the petitioner to exhaust them in state court and later seek to amend the petition to reinstate them, provided they relate back to the original petition. |
Staying the remainder of the habeas petition“The remainder of Jones’s habeas petition is STAYED;” | agree with court The stay is appropriate to preserve the federal court's jurisdiction over the exhausted claims while the petitioner pursues state remedies for the unexhausted claims, preventing the expiration of the statute of limitations for the entire petition. |
Ordering periodic written status reports“Jones must FILE periodic written status reports summarizing his efforts to exhaust his dismissed claims.” | agree with court This is a standard procedural condition imposed to ensure the petitioner is actively pursuing state exhaustion and to allow the court to monitor the progress of the stay. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the legal standard for withdrawal and abeyance from controlling Ninth Circuit precedent (King v. Ryan). It accurately applies the facts of the case (unopposed motion, specific unexhausted claims, promise to amend) to the legal requirements. The reasoning for the stay is sound, citing Jackson v. Roe to justify avoiding a dismissal that would trigger the statute of limitations. The order is procedurally correct as a Report and Recommendation.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 Ryan JONES, Case No.: 18-cv-2173-LAB-AGS 11 Petitioner, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT PETITIONER’S 12 v. UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR 13 Raymond MADDEN, Warden WITHDRAWAL AND ABEYANCE (ECF Nos. 12 & 14) 14 Respondent. 15 16 On September 28, 2018, the Court notified petitioner Ryan Jones that his habeas 17 corpus petition was deficient because it contained both exhausted and unexhausted claims. 18 (ECF No. 2, at 2.) Specifically, Jones failed to present Claims 3-6 to the California 19 Supreme Court. (Id.) To remedy this defect, Jones moves to withdraw Claims 3-6 until he 20 fully exhausts those claims in state court and to stay this federal case until that exhaustion 21 is finalized. The Warden did not respond to or oppose these motions. 22 To achieve a “withdrawal and abeyance,” a petitioner must (1) voluntarily withdraw 23 his unexhausted claims, (2) ask the Court to stay the proceedings and hold the petition’s 24 fully-exhausted portion in abeyance while he returns to state court to exhaust the rest, and 25 (3) seek permission to amend his petition to include the newly exhausted claims after 26 exhaustion is complete. King v. Ryan, 564 F.3d. 1133, 1135 (9th Cir. 2009). Jones is not 27 required to demonstrate good cause for his failure to timely exhaust. Id. at 1141. But the 28 newly exhausted claims must be either timely under the statute of limitations or “relate 1 || back” to the claims in the fully-exhausted petition by sharing a “common core of operative 2 || facts” with the previously exhausted claims. Jd. (quoting Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644. 659 3 ||(2005)). 4 With his current motions, Jones has satisfied the first two requirements for 5 || withdrawal and abeyance. In those motions, he also vows that—after state review and 6 exhaustion of Claims 3-6—he will seek to amend his original petition to include only fully 7 ||exhausted claims that relate back to his original petition. Thus, the requested stay is 8 || appropriate, particularly since “an outright dismissal will render it unlikely or impossible 9 ||for the petitioner to return to federal court within the one-year limitation period.” See 10 || Jackson vy. Roe, 425 F.3d 654, 659 (9th Cir. 2005). 11 The Court recommends that the following Order be entered: 12 1. Jones’s unopposed motions for withdrawal and abeyance are GRANTED; 13 2. Jones’s unexhausted Claims 3-6 are DISMISSED; 14 3. The remainder of Jones’s habeas petition is STAYED; and 15 4. Jones must FILE periodic written status reports summarizing his efforts to 16 exhaust his dismissed claims. The first report will be due by April 1, 2020, and 17 subsequent reports will be due every three months thereafter (July 1, 2020; 18 October 1, 2020; and so on). 19 Within 14 days of service of this report, the parties must file any objections to it. See 20 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The party receiving any such objection has 14 days to file any 21 ||response. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). 22 ||Dated: January 24, 2020 23 — Hon. ndrew G. Schopler United States Magistrate Judge 25 26 27 28