Keffier H. Savary v. Eric Arnold

Summary

The United States District Court for the Central District of California accepts the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation in Keffier H. Savary’s federal habeas corpus proceeding. The court denies leave to file a second amended petition, a stay, and an indefinite stay for late declarations, concluding that the proposed claims and new evidence are untimely, meritless, or not cognizable on federal habeas review. The court also addresses motions concerning return of property and discovery.

Holdings

1. Leave to file the proposed Second Amended Petition was properly denied because the proposed new grounds were lodged approximately seven years after the federal habeas statute of limitations expired and amendment would be futile.
2. A stay was unwarranted because Petitioner failed to show good cause for the failure to exhaust, that at least one unexhausted claim was potentially meritorious, or the absence of intentionally dilatory tactics.
3. Claims based solely on alleged violations or applications of California sentencing, resentencing, and racial-justice statutes are not cognizable on federal habeas review.
4. Claims seeking prison visitation, return of personal property, or other relief unrelated to the fact or duration of confinement are not cognizable in a federal habeas proceeding.
5. Petitioner was not entitled to discovery or expansion of the record because he failed to demonstrate good cause or a reason to believe that fully developed facts would establish entitlement to habeas relief.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Petitioner should be permitted to file a second amended federal habeas petition asserting proposed new Grounds 19 through 24 after the applicable statute of limitations expired.
2. Whether the federal habeas proceeding should be stayed while Petitioner exhausted proposed new state-law and other claims or developed additional evidence.
3. Whether Petitioner's new declarations and interview report strengthened any existing habeas claim sufficiently to warrant a stay or amendment.
4. Whether Petitioner's requests for return of property, prison visitation, and related relief were cognizable in a federal habeas proceeding.
5. Whether Petitioner demonstrated good cause for discovery under Rule 6 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases and whether the record should be expanded.
6. Whether the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation should be accepted and the operative habeas petition denied.

Disposition

dismissed