Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-02225/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-02225-4/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

05cv2225

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES EARL FELDER,

Petitioner,

v.

RODERICK Q. HICKMAN, Secretary of

the California Department of Corrections

and Rehabilitation,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 05cv2225-L(CAB)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION AND

DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION

TO STAY AND ABEY

Petitioner Charles Earl Felder, proceeding in pro se, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge

Cathy Ann Bencivengo for a report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)

and Civil Local Rule 72.3. 

In his first amended petition, Petitioner asserted three claims. Respondent filed a

response, arguing Petitioner failed to exhaust one of his claims. Petitioner subsequently filed a

Motion to Hold Proceedings on Petition in Abeyance, seeking to stay this action while he

returned to state court to exhaust the unexhausted claim. 

On February 1, 2007, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation,

recommending Petitioner’s motion be denied without prejudice. The recommendation is based

on the finding that a stay and abeyance of the proceedings is not necessary because the claim

Case 3:05-cv-02225-L-CAB Document 37 Filed 08/06/07 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

2 05cv2225

was exhausted. No objections were timely filed, and on March 12, 2007, this court issued an

order adopting the Report and Recommendation. On March 14, 2007, the court received a letter

from Petitioner indicating that as of March 7, 2007, he had not yet received the Report and

Recommendation. On March 22, 2007, the court extended the time for Petitioner to file and

serve objections, and extended the time to reply to any objections filed. Petitioner filed

objections on April 19, 2007. 

In reviewing a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the district court “shall

make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made,”

and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made

by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Under this statute, “the district judge must

review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but

not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir.) (en banc)

(emphasis in original); see Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1225-26 & n.5 (D. Ariz.

2003) (applying Reyna-Tapia to habeas review). 

The court has conducted the required de novo review and concurs with the Magistrate

Judge’s analysis and conclusion that because the claim is technically exhausted, the requested

relief is unnecessary. In the Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge determined that

the claim is procedurally barred under California law because Petitioner failed to raise it at the

trial level. The claim in question, as pleaded by the Petitioner, is “the prosecution failed to prove

the prior convictions alleged.” (First Amended Complaint at 2.) The California Court of Appeal

described the claim as “a variance between pleading and proof,” which a defendant cannot

object to at the appellate level if he did not raise it below, unless it affects his substantial rights. 

(Report & Recommendation at 4 (“Report & Rec.”), citing People v. Maury, 30 Cal. 4th 342,

427 (2003).) The appellate court found the issue was forfeited. Because no other state remedies

are available, the Magistrate Judge found that the exhaustion requirement is satisfied and the

stay and abeyance procedure is unnecessary. (Report & Rec. at 3 (citations omitted).)

Petitioner does not deny that the variance was not raised in trial court in the first instance. 

Instead, he objects to the Report and Recommendation, claiming he should not be held

Case 3:05-cv-02225-L-CAB Document 37 Filed 08/06/07 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

3 05cv2225

responsible for “the omission of his counsel not presenting [his] claim to the state supreme

court.” (Objections to Report and Rec. at 3-8 (“Objections”).) Petitioner’s reliance on Farretta

v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975), is misplaced. Faretta established that it was unconstitutional

for the states to force a court-appointed lawyer on a criminal defendant who voluntarily and

intelligently chose to represent himself. Id. at 807. Petitioner, however, does not claim that he

was denied the right to self-representation. He contends he meets the good cause requirement

for stay and abeyance because his counsel failed to submit this claim before the California

Supreme Court, Petitioner was not consulted and did not participate in the decision. (Objections

at 8.) This argument is rejected because clients are “held accountable for the acts and omissions

of their attorneys.” Pioneer Inv. Serv. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. P'ship, 507 U.S. 380, 396

(1993); Jones Stevedoring Co. v. Director, Office of Workers Comp. Programs, 133 F.3d 683,

689 (9th Cir. 1997) (that each party is deemed bound by the acts of his lawyer-agent is a bedrock

principle of the American system of representative litigation). The court notes that Petitioner

has not asserted an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.

As explained in the Report and Recommendation, the limited circumstances in which stay

and abeyance is appropriate require not only a determination of good cause for the failure to

exhaust the claim in state court, but also the determination that the unexhausted claim is not

“plainly meritless.” Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 277 (2005). (Report & Rec. at 3.) In his

Objections, Petitioner acknowledges this relevant legal test, but fails to present a cogent

argument as to why the claim is not meritless. (Objections at 6.) Even if Petitioner could show

good cause for his failure to exhaust, this court “would abuse its discretion if it were to grant him

a stay when his unexhausted claims are plainly meritless.” Rhines, 544 U.S. at 277.

Upon de novo review, the court concurs with the Magistrate Judge’s analysis and

conclusion that because the claim is technically exhausted, the requested relief is unnecessary.

/ / / / /

/ / / / /

/ / / / /

/ / / / /

Case 3:05-cv-02225-L-CAB Document 37 Filed 08/06/07 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

4 05cv2225

Accordingly, the court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation and DENIES WITHOUT

PREJUDICE Petitioner’s Motion to Hold Proceedings on Petition in Abeyance. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 2, 2007

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO: 

HON. CATHY ANN BENCIVENGO

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

Case 3:05-cv-02225-L-CAB Document 37 Filed 08/06/07 Page 4 of 4