King

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

A jury convicted King of violating California Penal Code §§ 288 and 269 by committing a lewd act and three aggra- vated assaults—rape, oral copulation, and digital penetration —on a child. King pursued direct appeal and state habeas cor- pus petitions, both of which were unsuccessful.

King’s first federal habeas petition contained exhausted and unexhausted claims. After King’s attorney failed to respond to the government’s motion to dismiss, the district court dis- missed the petition. King submitted a pro se motion under Rule 60(b) of Civil Procedure, and the district court set aside the judgment of dismissal, finding that King’s counsel had been grossly negligent. The district court stayed its proceed- ings while King pursued his unexhausted claims in state court. The California Supreme Court summarily denied King’s sub- sequent habeas petition, citing two cases barring review of habeas petitions filed after substantial delay: In re Clark, 855 P.2d 729 (Cal. 1993) [hereinafter Clark], and In re Robbins, 959 P.2d 311 (Cal. 1998). King then filed, and the district court denied, an amended habeas petition. 1 Applying the relevant standards we grant…