Douglas James v. Sheryl Pliler Daniel E. Lungren, Attorney General

The question presented by this appeal is whether a district court, presented with a petition for habeas review that includes exhausted and unexhausted claims, must explain to a pro se petitioner that he can amend the petition by deleting the unexhausted claims and proceed with only those that have been exhausted, rather than suffering dismissal of the entire petition without prejudice. As foreshadowed by our prior decision in this case, James v. Giles, 221 F.3d 1074 (9th Cir.2000) (“James I”), we conclude that the court must advise the petitioner of the right to amend the petition.

Factual and Procedural Background

Douglas James is a state prisoner serving three consecutive life sentences for kidnaping and robbery. He filed a petition for federal habeas review on the day before the one-yéar statute of limitations established by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) ran out. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (d)(1). The district court dismissed his pro se petition because it contained both exhausted and unexhausted claims. See Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 510 , 102 S.Ct. 1198 , 71 L.Ed.2d 379 (1982). Prior to dismissing, the court did not advise James of his right…