Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01457/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01457-3/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) DECLINING TO ADOPT THE

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE

JUDGE; and

(2) ISSUING A SCHEDULING ORDER

ON MOTION TO AMEND AND

MOTION FOR STAY AND ABEYANCE

vs.

DR. JEFFREY BEARD, Secretary,

Respondent.1

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

pro se with a First Amended Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254, presenting 4 claims. (ECF No. 3.) Respondent has filed an Answer contending that

Petitioner named his custodian at the time he initiated this action, “Capt. Pena,” as Respondent in the 1

original Petition (see ECF No. 1 at 1), and added Kamala Harris, the California Attorney General, as a

Respondent in the First Amended Petition (see ECF No. 3 at 1). Petitioner’s place of confinement has changed

during the pendency of this action. (See ECF No. 35 at 1.) Because a writ of habeas corpus acts upon the

custodian of the state prisoner, see 28 U.S.C. § 2242; Rule 2(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254, and because the

California Attorney General is not a proper Respondent to this action, see Rule 2(b), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254, the

Court sua sponte ORDERS the substitution of Dr. Jeffrey Beard, Secretary of the California Department of

Corrections and Rehabilitation, as Respondent in place of “Capt. Pena” and “Kamala Harris.” See OrtizSandoval v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 891, 894 (9th Cir. 1996) (stating that the respondent in § 2254 proceedings may be

the chief officer in charge of state penal institutions).

-1- 13cv1457

Case 3:13-cv-01457-BTM-WVG Document 40 Filed 10/16/14 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

habeas relief is not available because: (1) claim 1 does not present a federal question; (2) the

state court adjudication of claim 2 is neither contrary to, nor involves an unreasonable

application of, clearlyestablished federal law, and is not based on an unreasonable determination

of the facts; and (3) Petitioner has failed to exhaust state court remedies with respect to claims

3 and 4, because they have not been presented to the state supreme court, but they should be

denied notwithstanding that failure because they are without merit. (ECF No. 21 at 4-8.) 

On January 2, 2014, United States Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo issued an Order

notifying Petitioner that he had failed to exhaust his state court remedies with respect to claims

3 and 4, that the First Amended Petition was therefore subject to dismissal because it contained

both exhausted and unexhausted claims, and that the Magistrate Judge would recommend

dismissal of this action on that basis unless Petitioner chose one of four options on or before

February 3, 2014. (ECF No. 23.) The four options included: (1) demonstrate that claims 3 and

4 are in fact exhausted; (2) voluntarily dismiss this action and return to state court to exhaust

claims 3 and 4 (which carried not only the possibility but the likelihood that the one-year statute

of limitations would prevent consideration of any of Petitioner’s claims, including those which

had already been exhausted); (3) formally abandon claims 3 and 4 (which would likely result in

permanent abandonment of those claims in this Court); and (4) file a motion to stay these

proceedings while he returns to state court to exhaust claims 3 and 4. (Id.)

Although Petitioner was given several extensions of time to respond to the January 2,

2014 Order, he failed to do so, and on May 20, 2014, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and

Recommendation (“R&R”) which recommends that the Petition be dismissed without prejudice

to Petitioner refiling a future petition which contains only exhausted claims. (ECF No. 33.) 

Petitioner was given until June 20, 2014, to file objections to the R&R, but has not done so. On

August 19, 2014, however, he filed a Motion to amend the First Amended Petition and a Motion

for stay and abeyance. (ECF Nos. 37, 39.)

The Court has reviewed the R&R pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), which provides that:

“A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or

specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made. A judge of the

-2- 13cv1457

Case 3:13-cv-01457-BTM-WVG Document 40 Filed 10/16/14 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

court 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). 

The Court DECLINES TO ADOPT the R&R. The Magistrate Judge failed to address

Respondent’s contention that claims 3 and 4 should be denied as meritless notwithstanding

Petitioner’s failure to present them to the state supreme court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2) (“An

application for a writ of habeas corpus may be denied on the merits, notwithstanding the failure

of the applicant to exhaust the remedies available in the courts of the state.”); Cassett v. Stewart,

406 F.3d 614, 624 (9th Cir. 2005) (holding that a federal habeas court can deny relief on an

unexhausted claim “where it is perfectly clear that the petitioner has no chance of obtaining

relief.”) 

In addition, the Magistrate Judge failed to address whether the claims which have not

been presented to the state supreme court should be considered technically exhausted. The

exhaustion requirement is satisfied, “if it is clear that (the habeas petitioner’s) claims are now

procedurally barred under (state) law.” Gray v. Netherland, 518 U.S. 152, 161 (1996), quoting

Castille v. Peoples, 489 U.S. 346, 351 (1989); 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.’”); Cassett, 406 F.3d at 621 n.5 (“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.”), quoting Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 732

(1991). The Magistrate Judge failed to determine whether an attempt by Petitioner to return to

state court at this time in order to seek further post-conviction relief would meet with the

imposition of a procedural bar. See 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 untimely petitions will be summarily

denied,” and describing the “fundamental miscarriage of justice” exception to that rule).

-3- 13cv1457

Case 3:13-cv-01457-BTM-WVG Document 40 Filed 10/16/14 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

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, the Court DECLINES TO ADOPT the findings and conclusions of the

Magistrate Judge. The Court ISSUES the following briefing schedule for Petitioner’s Motion

to amend and Motion for stay and abeyance. Respondent shall file a consolidated response to

both Motions on or before November 7, 2014. Petitioner may file a Reply on or before

December 1, 2014. The undersigned District Judge will take the Motions under consideration

on December 5, 2014, and, unless otherwise ordered, will issue a ruling on both Motions

without oral argument.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 16, 2014

BARRY TED MOSKOWITZ, Chief Judge

United States District Court

-4- 13cv1457

Case 3:13-cv-01457-BTM-WVG Document 40 Filed 10/16/14 Page 4 of 4