Contreras v. Montgomery
- Proceeding
- writ
- Outcome
- other — 22.) 4 The United States Magistrate Judge has filed a thorough and well-reasoned Report 5 and Recommendation
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Barry T. Moskowitz (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation regarding a state prisoner's federal habeas petition, which contained both exhausted and unexhausted claims. The court adopted the R&R, denied the respondent's motion to dismiss, and issued a stay and abeyance to allow the petitioner to exhaust his remaining claims in state court.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Adoption of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation“The Court has reviewed the R&R and ADOPTS in full the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge.” | agree with court The order states that no party filed objections to the R&R. Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), when no objections are filed, the district court must review the R&R de novo to ensure it is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The order does not explicitly state the standard of review applied, but the adoption of a 'thorough and well-reasoned' R&R in the absence of objections is a standard procedural mechanism. The decision follows from the procedural posture. |
Denial of Respondent's Motion to Dismiss“For the reasons set forth in the R&R, the Court DENIES Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss” | agree with court The respondent moved to dismiss the petition as a 'mixed petition' containing both exhausted and unexhausted claims, citing Rose v. Lundy. The court denied this motion in favor of a stay and abeyance. This is consistent with the Supreme Court's decision in Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005), which allows district courts to stay and abey mixed petitions in exceptional circumstances, such as when the petitioner has a good cause for the failure to exhaust and the unexhausted claims are potentially meritorious. The order notes the petitioner's contention that he only recently became aware of the unexhausted claims, which supports a finding of good cause. The denial is without prejudice, allowing the respondent to raise procedural defenses later. |
Issuance of Stay and Abeyance“and ISSUES a stay and abeyance.” | agree with court The stay and abeyance is the procedural mechanism chosen to resolve the mixed petition issue. It allows the petitioner to return to state court to exhaust his claims while preserving the federal action. The court sets specific deadlines and conditions for the petitioner to follow, including a deadline to file in the California Supreme Court and a requirement to notify the federal court of state court filings. This is a standard and appropriate remedy for a mixed petition where dismissal is not warranted. |
The order itself: sound — The order is a standard procedural ruling adopting a Magistrate Judge's R&R. It correctly identifies the legal issue (mixed petition) and applies the appropriate remedy (stay and abeyance) in lieu of dismissal, which is consistent with Rhines v. Weber. The order provides clear instructions and deadlines for the petitioner. The reasoning is sound, though it relies heavily on the R&R for the detailed analysis of 'good cause' and 'meritoriousness' required for a stay and abeyance.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTHONY L. CONTRERAS, Case No.: 16cv2813-BTM-LL 12 Petitioner, ORDER: 13 v. 14 WARREN L. MONTGOMERY, (1) ADOPTING THE FINDINGS AND Warden, CONCLUSIONS OF UNITED STATES 15 Respondent. MAGISTRATE JUDGE; 16 (2) DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS 17 PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS 18 CORPUS; and, 19 (3) ISSUING STAY AND ABEYANCE 20 21 Petitioner Anthony L. Contreras is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 22 pauperis with a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, 23 challenging his San Diego County Superior Court convictions for attempted premeditated 24 murder and shooting at an occupied vehicle, with firearm and criminal street gang 25 enhancements, for which he is serving an indeterminate sentence of life in prison plus a 26 determinate sentence of 25 years to life. (ECF No. 1 at 1-2; ECF No. 19-1 at 2.) 27 Respondent has filed Motion to Dismiss the Petition, contending it contains both exhausted 28 and unexhausted claims. (ECF No. 18.) Petitioner has filed an Opposition contending he 1 first became aware his petition contains unexhausted claims when he received 2 Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss. He requests a stay and abeyance as an alternate to 3 dismissal. (ECF No. 22.) 4 The United States Magistrate Judge has filed a thorough and well-reasoned Report 5 and Recommendation (“R&R”) which recommends the Motion to Dismiss be denied and 6 this action stayed while Petitioner returns to the state supreme court to exhaust his 7 unexhausted claims. No party has filed Objections to the R&R. 8 The Court has reviewed the R&R and ADOPTS in full the findings and conclusions 9 of the Magistrate Judge. For the reasons set forth in the R&R, the Court DENIES 10 Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss and ISSUES a stay and abeyance. The denial of the 11 Motion to Dismiss is without prejudice to Respondent to raise any procedural defenses 12 after Petitioner has completed exhaustion. Petitioner shall follow the schedule set forth 13 below: 14 1. If Petitioner wants to try to exhaust the unexhausted claims he raised in the 15 original habeas petitions he filed in the San Diego Superior Court and the California Court 16 of Appeal, he must file a habeas petition with the California Supreme Court no later than 17 March 31, 2020. Petitioner is forewarned that any claims raised in a new habeas petition 18 filed in the California Supreme Court MUST be the same as the claims he previously 19 included in the original habeas petitions he filed in the San Diego Superior Court and the 20 California Court of Appeal and may not include any new legal theories. 21 2. When and if Petitioner receives notice that the California Supreme Court has 22 accepted a new habeas petition for filing, he must promptly and without delay provide this 23 Court with notice of the filing and a copy of the newly filed petition. If Petitioner fails to 24 provide the Court with prompt notice and a copy of any new filing in the California 25 Supreme Court, petitioner is forewarned that his entire Petition is subject to dismissal as a 26 mixed petition under Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 522 (1982). Notice will be considered 27 prompt if it is mailed to the Court within 15 days after Petitioner receives notice from the 28 California Supreme Court that his new petition was accepted for filing. 1 3. If Petitioner files a new petition in the California Supreme Court, he must 2 ||promptly mail his Amended Federal Petition that only includes exhausted claims to this 3 ||Court within 30 days of receipt of the California Supreme Court’s ruling on his new 4 || petition. 5 4. Alternatively, Petitioner may elect to abandon the unexhausted claims in his 6 || Federal Petition and proceed with his currently exhausted claims by filing an amended 7 || petition that only includes his currently exhausted claims. If Petitioner elects to abandon 8 unexhausted claims and proceed only on his currently exhausted claims, he is required 9 || to file his amended petition by March 31, 2020. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 j 12 || DATED: February 25, 2020 Tid. Meth, 3 BARRY TED MOSKOWITZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28