Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01966/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01966-2/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 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

RAMON D. VILLALOBOS, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

FRED FOULK, 

Respondent. 

No. 2:14-cv-1966-MCE-EFB P 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 28 

U.S.C. § 2254. He seeks a stay of these proceedings pending exhaustion of two issues in the 

California Supreme Court. ECF No. 19. Respondent has filed no opposition. For the reasons 

that follow, the motion should be denied as moot. 

I. Background 

Petitioner was convicted on various drug charges and sentenced to serve 26 years to life in 

state prison on December 3, 2012. ECF No. 1 at 1. In his petition, petitioner stated that all 

grounds he presented for relief had been presented to the highest state court. Id. at 13. 

Respondent noted in his answer that some of the claims were not exhausted. ECF No. 14 at 20. 

Petitioner then filed a one-page motion for a stay, stating that he wished to present additional 

issues that were never presented to the California Supreme Court. ECF No. 16. Because 

petitioner did not identify or describe the unexhausted issues or provide any information about 

Case 2:14-cv-01966-MCE-EFB Document 22 Filed 08/02/16 Page 1 of 3
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 

2

why the issues had not already been exhausted, the court denied the motion to stay without 

prejudice to a new motion showing the propriety of a stay under either Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 

1063 (9th Cir. 2002) or Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005). ECF Nos. 18, 20. Petitioner has 

now filed a new motion to stay, identifying the unexhausted claims as those also identified by 

respondent as unexhausted. ECF No. 19. 

Accordingly, it is now clear that the claims petitioner failed to exhaust before filing this 

federal petition are his claims that: (1) the trial court erred in denying his proffered defense 

because petitioner possessed more than eight ounces of marijuana (ECF No. 1 at 9) and (2) the 

trial court erred in ruling that another individual (rather than petitioner) was petitioner’s mother’s 

primary caregiver when that other individual did not possess a valid marijuana recommendation 

(id. at 11). 

II. The Motion to Stay 

Petitioner’s second motion to stay was filed on September 28, 2015. ECF No. 19. At that 

time, his petition exhausting the two unexhausted claims was pending in the California Supreme 

Court. By referring to that court’s public website, of which the court takes judicial notice, the 

undersigned has discovered that the petition was denied on November 11, 2015. California 

Courts, Appellate Courts Case Information, Docket of California Supreme Court Case No. 

S228439 (Villalobos (Ramon Daniel) on H.C.), 

http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=0&doc_id=2117057&doc_no

=S228439. Because the claims are now exhausted, the motion to stay pending exhaustion is 

moot, and should therefore be denied. 

Respondent has addressed the merits of the previously unexhausted claims already in his 

answer. ECF No. 14 at 20-21. Because respondent may want to address the timeliness of those 

claims now that they are exhausted, it is recommended that the court provide respondent with an 

opportunity to file an amended answer or a motion addressing the timeliness of the two 

previously unexhausted claims. 

///// 

///// 

Case 2:14-cv-01966-MCE-EFB Document 22 Filed 08/02/16 Page 2 of 3
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 

3

III. Conclusion and Recommendation 

For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that: 

1. Petitioner’s September 28, 2015 motion for stay (ECF No. 19) be denied as moot; and 

2. Respondent be provided 21 days from the date of any order adopting these 

recommendations to file an amended answer or a motion addressing the timeliness of 

petitioner’s previously-unexhausted claims, if he so chooses. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. 

Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

DATED: August 1, 2016. 

Case 2:14-cv-01966-MCE-EFB Document 22 Filed 08/02/16 Page 3 of 3