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 1 Applying the relevant standards we grant King’s motion to expand the COA with regard to his claim addressing the adequacy of California’s “substantial delay” rule, but deny his motion with regard to his other uncertified issues. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 327 (1995); Lambright v. Stewart, 220 F.3d 1022, 1026 (9th Cir. 2000). 11604 KING v. LAMARQUE the judgment of dismissal, finding that King’s counsel had been grossly negligent. The district court stayed its proceed- ings while King pursued his…