Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_01-cv-01322/USCOURTS-casd-3_01-cv-01322-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 535
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Death Penalty
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 - 01cv1322

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HECTOR JUAN AYALA,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 01cv1322-IEG (PCL)

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

MOTION TO STAY HABEAS

PROCEEDINGS [Doc. No. 252]

vs.

ROBERT L. AYERS, JR., Warden of the

California State Prison at San Quentin,

Respondent.

On November 24, 2008, Petitioner filed a motion for a stay of his federal habeas

proceedings to pursue Claim 26 of the federal petition in state court. On January 6, 2009,

Respondent filed an Opposition. Petitioner did not file a Reply.

Petitioner’s motion is appropriate for submission on the papers and without oral

argument pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.1(d), and the Court previously vacated the

January 23, 2009 hearing. For the reasons discussed below, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s

motion for stay and abeyance of Claim 26.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY OF CLAIM 26

Petitioner raised Claim 26 in state court as part of his first state habeas petition, asserting

that state officials violated his rights under the Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments when it

denied his right to consular notification and access under Article 36 of the Vienna Convention. 

The California Supreme Court denied the petition on May 14, 2001, ruling as follows:

The petition for a writ of habeas corpus is denied on the merits. With respect to

Case 3:01-cv-01322-IEG-PCL Document 256 Filed 02/13/09 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 - 01cv1322

Claim I, petitioner fails to allege facts showing he falls within the protection of the

Vienna Convention on Consular Relations and Optional Protocols on Disputes. In

addition, he fails to show prejudice. (Cf. Breard v. Greene (1998) 523 U.S. 371,

377.)

(Doc. No. 36, Lodgment No. 25.)

On April 27, 2005, Petitioner again raised his Vienna Convention claim in his third state

petition for writ of habeas corpus. On November 30, 2005, the California Supreme Court denied

the petition, finding:

The petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied without prejudice to the refiling of

the petition after the United States Supreme Court has resolved related issues in two

cases in which the high court has recently granted certiorari. (See Sanchez-Llamas

v. Oregon (Ore. 2005) 108 P.3d 573, cert. granted Nov. 7, 2005, ___ U.S. ___ [74

U.S.L.Week 3287]; Bustillo v. Johnson (Va.Cir.Ct. 2004) 65 Va. Cir. 69, cert.

granted Nov. 7, 2005, ___ U.S. ___ [74 U.S.L.Week 3287].) Kennard and Moreno,

JJ., are of the opinion an order to show cause should be issued.

(Doc. No. 227, Lodgment No. 34.) 

On December 28, 2007, Petitioner filed a fourth state habeas petition, raising only his

claim under the Vienna Convention. On June 18, 2008, the California Supreme Court requested

the parties brief the court on the impact of Medellin v. Texas, 128 S.Ct. 1346 (2008), on

Petitioner’s claim. Respondent and Petitioner submitted letter briefs on July 18, 2008 and July 21,

2008, respectively, and on August 1, 2008, Petitioner submitted an additional letter brief. This

fourth state petition is currently pending before the California Supreme Court.

STAY AND ABEYANCE

In 2005, the Supreme Court concluded that a district court has discretion to stay a habeas

corpus petition to allow a petitioner time to present unexhausted claims to the state court. The

court may stay and hold a petition in abeyance when it finds that: (1) there was good cause for

failure to exhaust the claim; (2) the claim is not plainly meritless; and (3) there is no indication

that the failure to exhaust was for purposes of delay. See Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 277-78

(2005). If the court finds petitioner=s claims are not “plainly meritless,” and also that petitioner is

not using the procedure as Aabusive litigation tactics or [for] intentional delay,@ and has Agood

cause@ for the failure to have previously exhausted those claims, the Supreme Court held that “it

likely would be an abuse of discretion for a district court to deny a stay.” Id.

Case 3:01-cv-01322-IEG-PCL Document 256 Filed 02/13/09 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 - 01cv1322

In his pending fourth state habeas petition, Petitioner contends that the California Supreme

Court must reconsider his Vienna Convention claim pursuant to the International Court of

Justice’s decision in Case Concerning Avena and other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United

States), 2004 I.C.J. No. 128, and President Bush’s February 28, 2005 Memorandum to the United

States Attorney General. Petitioner asserts that good cause exists for a stay of this Court’s

determination on Claim 26 of his petition, because “Medellin does not foreclose the possibility

that a state court may provide review and reconsideration” of a petitioner’s Vienna Convention

claim. (Petitioner’s Motion for Stay at 5.) Petitioner reiterates that there has been “no final

determination by the state court” on this issue, and asserts that his interest in “obtaining federal

review of his claims outweighs the competing interests in finality and speedy resolution of federal

petitions.” (Id. at 5-6.) 

On March 7, 2003, the Court granted a stay and abeyance of the second amended federal

petition pending the exhaustion of state remedies. After exhausting his claims in state court,

Petitioner filed his third amended petition with the Court on December 9, 2004. On April 12,

2005, the Court accepted the parties’ joint stipulation to hold claim 26 in abeyance pending the

California Supreme Court’s resolution of Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of that claim

based on Avena and the President’s Memorandum. Thereafter, the Court issued a briefing

schedule, with claim 26 set to be briefed on the merits with the Group Six claims, commencing on

July 10, 2007. On July 9, 2007, the Court granted Petitioner’s motion for an additional extension

of time to brief Claim 26, proceeding on the remainder of the Group Six claims as scheduled. 

Thereafter, the Court granted several additional extensions of time, and Petitioner’s Motion for

Summary Adjudication on Claim 26 was filed on April 30, 2008. 

Presently, Claim 26 is fully briefed in this Court and is ready for merits disposition. The

Court has issued two previous stays in this case, one solely concerning Claim 26. The Court has

also granted several extensions of time for merits briefing on Claim 26. The Supreme Court has

emphasized that the “stay and abey” procedure is only appropriate in limited circumstances. A

district court must remain mindful of AEDPA’s objectives not only to prompt petitioners to “seek

relief from state courts in the first instance” but also to “reduce delays in the execution of state

Case 3:01-cv-01322-IEG-PCL Document 256 Filed 02/13/09 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 - 01cv1322

and federal criminal sentences, particularly in capital cases.” Rhines, 544 U.S. at 276. Although

Petitioner argues the state court may grant him relief under Medellin, the Supreme Court in

Medellin, held that “neither Avena nor the President’s Memorandum constitutes directly

enforceable federal law that preempts state limitations on the filing of successive habeas

petitions,” and neither decision required the states to provide review of the petitioner’s Vienna

Convention claims. Medellin, 128 S.Ct. at 1353.

 Accordingly, the Court finds Petitioner has failed to meet his burden of demonstrating that

a stay is warranted under Rhines. Petitioner’s Motion for Stay and Abeyance is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 13, 2009

IRMA E. GONZALEZ, Chief Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:01-cv-01322-IEG-PCL Document 256 Filed 02/13/09 Page 4 of 4