Walker v. Beard
- Edward Chen
- 3:16-cv-01280
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Walker v. Beard, Judge Chen dissolved the stay, reopened the habeas action, and allowed an amended petition by September 9, 2022.
Thelmeas Walker’s earlier federal petition and Jeffrey Beard’s response obligations were affected; the case was reopened and Walker received a deadline to amend.
What happened
In Walker v. Beard, the court had paused Thelmeas Walker’s federal petition so he could pursue a new claim in state court. He later filed another federal petition challenging the same convictions.
The court dismissed the later petition in the interest of justice after the respondent argued, among other things, that it was filed too late. The court then dissolved the stay and reopened the earlier action.
Judge Edward M. Chen allowed Walker to file a complete amended petition by September 9, 2022. Any claim not included would be treated as waived, and if no amended petition were filed, the case would proceed on the claims originally raised in the earlier petition.
The detailed version
- Walker v. Beard · No. 3:16-cv-01280
- Edward Chen
- July 28, 2022
Background
Thelmeas Walker’s federal petition challenging his convictions had been stayed so he could exhaust a new claim in state court. In 2021, he filed another federal petition challenging the same convictions.
Court’s action
The respondent moved to dismiss the 2021 petition, including on the ground that it was untimely under the federal deadline in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). The court dismissed that petition in the interest of justice and decided to reopen the earlier case.
The court therefore dissolved the stay in Walker’s earlier action and reopened it. The Clerk was directed to modify the docket.
Amended petition and next steps
The court allowed Walker to file an amended petition by September 9, 2022. The amended petition had to use the earlier case’s caption and case number and had to be marked “Amended Petition.” It also had to provide a complete statement of every claim Walker wanted to pursue, including claims from either petition or claims not previously filed in federal court. Any claim omitted from the amended petition would be deemed waived, and the court would order briefing only on the claims presented.
The respondent did not have to answer the amended petition until the court reviewed it under 28 U.S.C. § 2243 and Rule 4 of the rules governing petitions challenging state convictions. If Walker did not file an amended petition by the deadline, the court would assume he intended to proceed only on the claims originally raised in the earlier petition and had waived all other claims. The court would then set a schedule for the respondent to answer the original claims.
Disposition
Judge Edward M. Chen dissolved the stay and reopened the action. The order did not decide the merits of Walker’s challenges to his convictions.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.