Dawson v. State of California

Background

Kenneth Dean Dawson, identified as a California prisoner, sought federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He had been sentenced to 20 years in prison after pleading no contest to three counts of second-degree robbery. The California Court of Appeal affirmed his conviction on February 26, 2016. The federal court found no record of a petition for review filed with the California Supreme Court immediately after that decision. Dawson later filed state habeas petitions in the Santa Clara County Superior Court, the California Court of Appeal, and the California Supreme Court; all were denied in 2019.

The federal court had previously dismissed Dawson’s petition with leave to amend. Dawson did not file an amended petition, but he filed a motion asking the court to stay the federal case.

Issues and analysis

The court said Dawson had not presented distinct claims. It understood him to argue that his sentence was improper because the law distinguishes between violent and nonviolent offenses. He also appeared to seek resentencing under California Senate Bill 1393, which gives trial courts discretion to strike or dismiss certain prior serious or violent felony enhancements.

The court explained that federal habeas petitions by state prisoners generally must be filed within the one-year limitations period in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). It had previously noted that the petition appeared untimely: if Dawson did not seek review in the California Supreme Court after the 2016 appellate decision, the limitations period would have expired in 2017. The court also explained that Dawson’s later state habeas petitions would not restart a limitations period that had already expired.

The court further stated that, even assuming the petition was timely, federal habeas relief was unavailable for claims based only on violations of California law. It said Dawson had not clarified whether his petition presented viable federal claims. His motion for a stay included general exhibits about limitations and procedural default, but did not explain how those issues related to his petition or claims, and he did not present arguments supporting a stay.

Ruling

The court dismissed the motion for a stay with leave to amend. It instructed Dawson that any amended motion should address the requirements for a stay under Rhines v. Weber or, alternatively, the three-step procedure described in Kelly v. Small and King v. Ryan. He also had to identify the claims he wanted to exhaust and file an amended petition addressing timeliness, stating distinct claims, and explaining why they presented viable federal issues.

The conclusion set February 28, 2020, as the deadline for both an amended stay motion and an amended petition. The court ordered the amended petition to include the words “AMENDED PETITION” on its first page and warned that failure to amend could result in dismissal of the petition. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton also directed Dawson to keep the court informed of address changes and warned that failure to comply with court orders could lead to dismissal for failure to prosecute.