Sanford
- Beth Freeman
- 5:20-cv-05389
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 6
Sanford v. People: Judge Freeman granted Sanford 42 more days to respond about unexhausted claims in his federal habeas petition.
Barry John Sanford and the continued processing of his federal petition; the People of the State of California is the named respondent.
What happened
Barry John Sanford, a California state prisoner, filed a federal petition challenging his state conviction. The court found that the petition included both claims already presented to the state courts and claims that had not been presented there.
The court found the petition timely because Sanford filed a state post-conviction petition before the federal one-year deadline expired, giving him 13 days of additional time. The court told him he could either proceed only with exhausted claims or ask to pause the federal case while he exhausted the others in state court.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman granted Sanford’s request for additional time and his request for a copy of an earlier letter. Sanford had 42 days to file an amended petition containing only exhausted claims and, alternatively, a motion to pause the case under the procedures identified by the court; failure to respond would result in dismissal without prejudice.
The detailed version
- Sanford · No. 5:20-cv-05389
- Beth Freeman
- Nov. 23, 2020
Background
Barry John Sanford, a California state prisoner, filed a letter that the court treated as an attempt to file a petition for federal review of his state conviction under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He paid the filing fee. After reviewing the materials, the court found that the petition contained both exhausted and unexhausted claims. An exhausted claim is one that has been presented to the state courts through the required review process; an unexhausted claim has not yet been presented there.
The court’s earlier order directed Sanford either to file an amended petition containing only exhausted claims or to request a stay under procedures identified in the order while he returned to state court to exhaust additional claims. Sanford then requested more time, citing the COVID-19 pandemic and expressing disagreement with the court’s instructions.
Timeliness
The court explained that the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act generally gives a state prisoner one year to file a federal habeas petition. The limitations period is paused while a properly filed state post-conviction or other collateral proceeding is pending. The court determined that Sanford’s state petition, filed on June 3, 2020, paused the limitations period until the state superior court denied it on June 15, 2020. The court therefore found that Sanford had until August 5, 2020, to file a timely federal petition, and that his August 4, 2020 petition was timely.
Exhaustion and Available Options
The court stated that Sanford must exhaust new claims in state court before presenting them for federal review. Because the petition contained both exhausted and unexhausted claims, Sanford could proceed only on the exhausted claims or request a stay while pursuing the unexhausted claims in state court.
The court explained that a request under Rhines v. Weber requires a reasonable explanation for failing to exhaust the claim earlier and a short statement showing that the claim may have merit. A request under Kelly v. Small does not require that explanation but requires the new claims to share a common core of operative facts with the exhausted claims. The court stated that Sanford must provide an amended petition containing only exhausted claims even if he also seeks a stay.
Order
Judge Beth Labson Freeman granted Sanford’s request for additional time to respond. Within 42 days from the order’s filing date, Sanford could notify the court that he wished to remove the unexhausted claims and proceed solely on the two claims he had presented to the state courts. Alternatively, he could file a motion for a stay under Rhines or Kelly and an amended petition containing only exhausted claims. If the stay were granted, he would later be permitted to amend the petition to include newly exhausted claims.
The court also granted Sanford’s request for a copy of his earlier letter and directed the Clerk to send him that letter with a copy of the order. The court stated that failing to respond as required within the 42-day period would result in dismissal without prejudice of the mixed petition.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.