describing the process 28 1 available to prisoners of filing a “protective” petition in federal court and asking for 2 a stay until state remedies are exhausted
How later courts described this case
- describing the process 28 1 available to prisoners of filing a “protective” petition in federal court and asking for 2 a stay until state remedies are exhausted
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 BERNARD BROWN, JR., Case No. 2:22-cv-06755-FLA (KSx)
12 Petitioner, ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS
13 v. AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE
14 MARCUS POLLARD,
JUDGE
15 Respondent.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the court has reviewed the Motion to Amend,
2 Dkts. 32, 33, the records on file, and the Report and Recommendation of the United
3 States Magistrate Judge (“Report”). Dkt. 43. Further, the court has engaged in a de
4 novo review of those portions of the Report to which objections have been made.
5 Dkt. 45.
6 Petitioner requests leave to amend his habeas petition, which is still pending,
7 with four additional claims. Dkt. 33. The Report recommends denial of leave to
8 amend because the proposed claims are untimely or duplicative. Dkt. 43.
9 Petitioner’s objections to the Report, Dkt. 45, fail to warrant any change to the
10 Report’s proposed findings or recommendations.
11 Petitioner objects to the Report’s legal standard, apparently because the
12 standard for successive habeas petitions should apply. Dkt. 45 at 3. A habeas
13 petition is successive if, “at a minimum, an earlier-filed petition has been finally
14 adjudicated.” Balbuena v. Sullivan, 980 F.3d 619, 635 (9th Cir. 2020). Because
15 there is no earlier-filed petition by this Petitioner that has been finally adjudicated,
16 this action does involve a successive petition.
17 Petitioner objects that three of his proposed new claims are not untimely
18 because they relate back to his earlier, timely claims. Dkt. 45 at 4-5. As the
19 Report found, the proposed new claims and the earlier claims are not tied to a
20 common core of operative facts. Dkt. 43 at 12-13. The proposed new claims,
21 compared to the earlier claims, involved different stages of the state criminal
22 proceeding, a different prosecutor, and discrete or separate transactions. Id.
23 Petitioner does not challenge these findings in any substantive manner.
24 Petitioner objects that he diligently exhausted his claim in the state courts in
25 order to seek relief in federal court with his new proposed claims. Dkt. 45 at 6. But
26 Petitioner did not need to exhaust his claims in state court before filing a motion to
27 amend. See Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 416 (2005) (describing the process
28
1 available to prisoners of filing a “protective” petition in federal court and asking for
2 a stay until state remedies are exhausted).
3 Petitioner objects that prison staff kept his legal materials from him, which
4 he apparently raises as a basis for equitable tolling. Dkt. No. 45 at 6-7. Petitioner
5 refers to a letter and attached documents in which he alleged that his legal materials
6 were withheld from him beginning on August 15, 2023, upon his transfer to
7 California Medical Facility. Dkt. 24 at 2. Deprivation of legal materials could be a
8 basis for equitable tolling. See Waldron-Ramey v. Pacholke, 556 F.3d 1008, 1013
9 (9th Cir. 2009). Here, however, this alleged circumstance, assuming it might
10 qualify as extraordinary, could not have been the cause of the untimeliness of
11 Petitioner’s proposed new claims. The court notified prison officials on October
12 12, 2023, that Petitioner had pending actions that would require the use of his legal
13 materials. Dkt. 27. Moreover, Petitioner was transferred to another prison around
14 January 12, 2024. Dkt. 31. These circumstances, liberally construed, show that the
15 withholding of the legal materials could have lasted, at the longest, for five months.
16 But Petitioner’s proposed new claims are untimely by six months. Dkt. 43 at 10.
17 Thus, the alleged withholding of legal materials could not have caused the
18 untimeliness of Petitioner’s proposed new claims. See Smith v. Davis, 953 F.3d
19 582, 591 (9th Cir. 2020) (en banc) (“For if an extraordinary circumstance is not the
20 cause of a litigant’s untimely filing, then there is nothing for equity to address.”).
21 Petitioner objects that he asked the court for the appointment of counsel.
22 Dkt. 45 at 7. As the court explained, prisoners are not entitled to counsel in habeas
23 corpus actions, and Petitioner did not show it was warranted in this case. Dkt. 7.
24 The requirement that Petitioner litigate this action as a pro se litigant does not
25 entitle him to amend his petition with untimely claims.
26 Finally, Petitioner appears to object that his proposed new claim, based on
27 insufficiency of the evidence, is not duplicative of an already-pending claim of
28 insufficiency of the evidence. Dkt. No. 45 at 7. As the Report found, the claims
1 || are duplicative, rendering amendment futile. Dkt. 43 at 14. Petitioner does not
2 || challenge this finding in any meaningful manner.
3 ORDER
4 It is ORDERED that (1) the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate
5 || Judge is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED; and (2) Petitioner’s motion to amend his
6 || petition is DENIED.
7
8 IT IS SO ORDERED.
9
10 || Dated: April 9, 2025
11 FERNANDO L. AENLLE-ROCHA
United States District Judge
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28