Young v. Cates

Summary

The document contains findings and recommendations by a United States Magistrate Judge in a federal habeas corpus action under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. It recommends granting the respondent’s motion to dismiss the mixed petition without prejudice because most claims were unexhausted, while allowing the petitioner to seek dismissal of the unexhausted claims or request a properly supported stay. It also recommends substituting Brian Cates as the respondent and provides a fourteen-day objection period.

Holdings

1. A state prisoner must give the highest state court a full and fair opportunity to consider each federal claim, and exhaustion is evaluated separately for each claim. Because Young did not present grounds one through five and seven through nine to the California Supreme Court, those claims were unexhausted.
2. A federal habeas petition containing both exhausted and unexhausted claims is subject to dismissal, but the petitioner must be given an opportunity to delete the unexhausted claims and proceed on the exhausted claim or seek an appropriate stay.
3. Young was not entitled to a Rhines stay because he provided no evidentiary support for his assertion that appellate counsel refused to raise the unexhausted claims, and an unsupported assertion of good cause generally does not justify failure to exhaust.
4. Brian Cates, the current warden of the institution where Young is incarcerated, should be substituted as respondent under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d).

Questions Presented

1. Whether Young's federal habeas petition was a mixed petition because grounds one through five and seven through nine had not been fairly presented to the California Supreme Court.
2. Whether Young established grounds for excusing the exhaustion requirement or obtaining a Rhines stay based on his assertion that appellate counsel refused to raise the unexhausted claims.
3. Whether the mixed petition should be dismissed without prejudice, subject to Young's opportunity to delete the unexhausted claims or seek a stay under Rhines or Kelly.
4. Whether Brian Cates should be substituted as the respondent under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d).

Disposition

dismissed