The opinion of the court was delivered by: Craig M. Kellison United States Magistrate Judge
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pending before the court are: (1) petitioner's motion for leave to file an amended petition (Doc. 29); and (2) petitioner's motion for an order staying this case and holding federal proceedings in abeyance pending exhaustion of claims in state court (Doc. 30). Petitioner has also filed "Proposed Amendments" (Doc. 31), but did not file a complete proposed amended petition which raises all exhausted and unexhausted claims. Respondent has filed an opposition to petitioner's motions.
This action currently proceeds on petitioner's original petition (Doc. 1).*fn1
Petitioner challenges a 2003 conviction and sentence for murder and other crimes following his jury trial in the Solano County Superior Court. Petitioner states that he appealed the conviction and sentence to the California Court of Appeal in 2004 and then to the California Supreme Court in 2005. He does not provide any more specificity as to the exact filing and denial dates, or the claims raised other than to say that the claims raised in the instant federal petition were raised before the state court. Petitioner did not seek certiorari by the United States Supreme Court after the California Supreme Court denied direct review, and he did not file any state court post-conviction actions.
In his federal petition, petitioner states his claims as follows:
A. DNA expert's testimony arbitrarily selected the admission of irrelevant evidence of the rarity of the perpetrator's DNA profile in three racial groups was prejudicial to him. . .;
B. Respondent's argument of evidence code sections 801 and 802 rendered frequencies in three racial groups admissible is erroneous;
C. Respondent is incorrect in its assertion that a substantial body of case law supports the presentation of frequencies in a range of racial databases;
D. Respondent's inaccurate in claiming that appellant's contention has been rejected by California courts in the context of other types of forensic evidence;
E. Respondent is misguided in criticizing the alternative procedure of presenting the most conservative frequency without reference to race;
F. Respondent is wrong to trivialize the unfairness of the expert's arbitrary selection of three racial databases, and her omission of other racial databases; and
G. Respondent's argument that the error was harmless is mistaken.
All of these claims are presented in the context of a more general challenge to the admission of DNA evidence and ...