Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01457/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01457-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOAQUIN MURRIETTA MARTINEZ,

Petitioner,

Civil No. 13cv1457-BTM (WVG)

ORDER:

(1) GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION

TO AMEND THE PETITION; and,

(2) DENYING MOTION FOR STAY

AND ABEYANCE AS MOOT

vs.

DR. JEFFREY BEARD, Secretary,

Respondent.

Joaquin Murrietta Martinez (hereinafter “Petitioner”), is a California prisoner proceeding

pro se and in forma pauperis with a First Amended Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus filed

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his San Diego County Superior Court conviction for

first degree murder. (ECF No. 3.) The First Amended Petition lists four claims; the first two

claims relate to the failure of Lisa Brown to testify at trial, and were raised on direct appeal in

the state appellate and supreme courts; the third and fourth claims, which have never been

presented to any state court, both allege ineffective assistance of trial counsel for ignoring letters

Petitioner provided to counsel which he contends show that several people recanted or made

false statements. (FAP at 6-9.) Petitioner has filed a Motion to Amend the First Amended

Petition to present additional claims alleging: (1) he was compelled to testify against himself

when a videotaped statement he made to the police was shown to the jury, and because he was

-1- 13cv1457

Case 3:13-cv-01457-BTM-WVG Document 50 Filed 12/30/14 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

forced to take the stand at trial to respond to that statement; (2) ineffective assistance of appellate

counsel for failure to argue he was compelled to testifyagainst himself; (3) ineffective assistance

of trial counsel for failing to present evidence of Petitioner’s medical condition; (4) improper

admission of hearsay statements; and (5) arbitrary and discriminatory prosecution. (ECF No.

37.) Petitioner has also filed a Motion for Stay and Abeyance in which he requests the Court to

hold the First Amended Petition in abeyance while he returns to state court to exhaust state court

remedies as to those claims, and as to the ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim raised in

the First Amended Petition. (ECF No. 39)

On October 16, 2014, the Court ordered Respondent to file a consolidated response to

both motions on or before November 7, 2014. (ECF No. 40.) After that deadline passed, and

Respondent had not filed a response, the Court extended the deadline to December 19, 2014. 

(ECF No. 43.) On December 17, 2014, Respondent filed an Opposition to the Motion for Stay

and Abeyance, but has not filed a response to the Motion to Amend. (ECF No. 47.) Because

Respondent has now twice failed to respond to the Motion to Amend when ordered to do so, the

Motion to Amend is GRANTED as unopposed. In order to avoid the delay in requiring

Petitioner to file a Second Amended Petition which presents all claims in a single pleading, the

First Amended Petition is hereby consolidated with the habeas petition which constitutes

Petitioner’s Motion to amend (ECF No. 37), and together they form the operative pleading in

this action. Petitioner’s Motion for Stay and Abeyance is DENIED as moot because, for the

following reasons, the Court finds that the new claims are technically exhausted and

procedurally defaulted due to Petitioner’s failure to present them to the state court in a timely,

procedurally proper manner.

Petitioner filed his direct appeal opening brief on August 5, 2011, and the state appellate

court affirmed his conviction on September 6, 2012. (Lodgment Nos. 3, 5.) Thus, over three

years have passed since Petitioner was required to present his claims to the state courts. See

Walker v. Martin, 562 U.S. ___, 131 S.Ct. 1120, 1125-31 (2011) (holding that California’s

timeliness requirement providing that a prisoner must present claims without “substantial delay”

as “measured from the time the petitioner or counsel knew, or should reasonably have known,

-2- 13cv1457

Case 3:13-cv-01457-BTM-WVG Document 50 Filed 12/30/14 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

of the information offered in support of the claim and the legal basis for the claim,” is clearly

established and consistently applied). Because Petitioner has not presented the claims to the

state courts, they are now technically exhausted and procedurally defaulted in this Court. See

Cassett v. Stewart, 406 F.3d 614, 621 n.5 (9th Cir. 2005) (“A habeas petitioner who has

defaulted his federal claims in state court meets the technical requirements for exhaustion; there

are no state remedies any longer ‘available’ to him.”); Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 735

n.1 (1991) (holding that a procedural default arises when “the court to which the petitioner

would be required to present his claims in order to meet the exhaustion requirement would now

find the claims procedurally barred.”); see id. at 729-30, 750 (a procedural default arises from

a violation of a state procedural rule which is independent of federal law, and which is clearly

established and consistently applied, and as a precondition to granting habeas relief on such a

defaulted claim, the petitioner is required to demonstrate cause for the failure to properly present

his claim to the state supreme court, and prejudice as a result of the federal procedural default,

or show that a fundamental miscarriage of justice would result if habeas relief was denied as a

result of the default.); In re Clark, 5 Cal.4th 750, 797-98 (1993) (“the general rule is still that,

absent justification for the failure to present all known claims in a single, timely petition for writ

of habeas corpus,successive and/or untimelypetitions will be summarilydenied,” and describing

the “fundamental miscarriage of justice” exception to that rule); Engle v. Isaac, 456 U.S. 107,

125-26 n.28 (1982) (noting that the exhaustion requirement applies “only to remedies still

available at the time of the federal petition.”); Valerio v. Crawford, 306 F.3d 742, 770 (9th Cir.

2002) (same), citing Phillips v. Woodford, 267 F.3d 966, 974 (9th Cir. 2001) (“the district court

correctly concluded that [the] claims were nonetheless exhausted because ‘a return to state court

for exhaustion would be futile.’”) Petitioner has provided no basis to find that his untimeliness

is excusable under state law.1

/ / / 

Petitioner has submitted a state superior court habeas petition which he would presumably file 1

in the state court were this Court to grant his Motion for Stay and Abeyance, but has left blank the line

in the state petition form asking him to: “Explain any delay in the discovery of the grounds for relief and

in raising the claims in this petition. (See In re Swain (1949) 34 Cal.2d 300, 304.)” (ECF No. 37 at 11.) 

-3- 13cv1457

Case 3:13-cv-01457-BTM-WVG Document 50 Filed 12/30/14 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

In his Motion for Stay and Abeyance, Petitioner requests that this action be stayed while

he returns to state court to exhaust state court remedies as to the new claims and the ineffective

assistance of counsel claim set forth in the First Amended Petition, and he then be allowed to

amend the First Amended Petition to include the newly-exhausted claims. Because the Court

has consolidated the First Amended Petition with the habeas petition which includes the new

claims, and has found the exhaustion requirement to be satisfied with respect to the claims now

presented in the consolidated operative pleading in this matter, Petitioner’s Motion for Stay and

Abeyance is DENIED as moot.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Petitioner’s Motion to Amend [ECF No. 37] is GRANTED. The First Amended Petition

is consolidated with the habeas petition which is presented as the Motion to Amend, and the

operative pleading in this matter is that consolidated petition. Petitioner’s Motion for Stay and

Abeyance [ECF No. 39] is DENIED as moot. 

Respondent shall file an Answer to the operative pleading in this matter on or before

March 2, 2015, in which Respondent, in addition to addressing the merits of the claims, may

raise any affirmative defenses with respect to the new claims, including but not limited to

timeliness, and whether the requirements of cause and prejudice, or a fundamental miscarriage

of justice, necessary to overcome the procedural default, have been satisfied. Petitioner may file

a Traverse on or before April 2, 2015.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 30, 2014

BARRY TED MOSKOWITZ, Chief Judge

United States District Court

-4- 13cv1457

Case 3:13-cv-01457-BTM-WVG Document 50 Filed 12/30/14 Page 4 of 4