Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-02311/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-02311-0/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)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRYAN RANDALL MONKRES,

Petitioner,

 v.

ROSEANNE CAMPBELL, Warden,

et al.,

Respondents. ____________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 04-2311 CW (pr)

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION

FOR LEAVE TO AMEND PETITION AND TO

STAY PROCEEDINGS

(Docket no. 37)

INTRODUCTION

Petitioner Bryan Randall Monkres, a state prisoner

incarcerated at Mule Creek State Prison (MCSP) in Iona, California,

filed this pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging a conviction and sentence imposed by

Lake County Superior Court.

Before the Court is Petitioner's motion for leave to amend his

first amended petition to add newly discovered claims and for a

further stay of these proceedings pending exhaustion of these

claims. Respondent opposes his motion.

Having considered all of the papers filed by the parties, the

Court DENIES Petitioner's motion. 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Following a jury trial, Petitioner was convicted of ten counts

of rape and two counts of forcible oral copulation. On February

28, 2002, the trial court sentenced Petitioner to serve consecutive

terms of six years for each of the twelve counts, for a total of

seventy-two years in state prison. The California Court of Appeal

affirmed Petitioner's conviction in an unpublished opinion issued

Case 4:04-cv-02311-CW Document 43 Filed 02/14/08 Page 1 of 12
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

on October 31, 2003. (Resp't Ex. 6.) The California Supreme Court

denied review on January 14, 2004. (Resp't Ex. 8.)

On June 14, 2004, Petitioner timely filed a federal habeas

corpus petition raising six claims: (1) that the trial court erred

in instructing the jury that Petitioner could be found guilty based

on propensity evidence alone using California Jury Instructions

Criminal (CALJIC) No. 2.50.01; (2) that the trial court erred in

instructing the jury with CALJIC No. 1.23.1.; (3) ineffective

assistance of trial counsel; (4) ineffective assistance of

appellate counsel; (5) that Petitioner's prior sexual assaults

against T.P. were improperly admitted into evidence; and

(6) cumulative error based on ineffectiveness of his trial and

appellate counsel. He alleged that the two claims of instructional

error were the only claims he presented to the state courts. He

claimed that he did not pursue the other four claims before filing

his federal habeas petition because he wanted to assure that he

filed the petition in a timely manner. Therefore, he asked the

Court to stay the petition in order for him to return to state

court to exhaust his unexhausted claims.

In a November 9, 2004 Order, the Court granted Petitioner's

request to stay the petition to exhaust his state judicial

remedies. The Court also directed Petitioner to file an amended

petition in this action containing only his exhausted claims and

ordered that the "stay will go into effect on the date the amended

petition is filed." (Nov. 9, 2004 Order at 4.) Petitioner filed

his amended petition containing all six original claims on December

8, 2004, and the stay went into effect on that date.

The California Supreme Court's official website shows that the

habeas petition relating to his six original claims was denied on

Case 4:04-cv-02311-CW Document 43 Filed 02/14/08 Page 2 of 12
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

December 12, 2005 in Monkres (Bryan R.) On H.C., Cal. S. Ct. No.

S130326. 

On June 12, 2006, Petitioner filed an "Ex-Parte Motion to File

Belated Amended Petition." Petitioner stated that he failed to

comply with the Court's previous order which stated: "within thirty

(30) days after receiving a final decision of the highest State

court available to review his claims Petitioner must file a second

amended petition in this Court which incorporates the newly

exhausted claims he intends to raise in federal court." (Nov. 9,

2004 Order at 4.) Therefore, Petitioner asked the Court to grant

him leave to file a belated petition containing his six newly

exhausted claims. Petitioner added that he intended to incorporate

into his amended petition six newly discovered claims that he

states were "blatant constitutional violations." Therefore, he

filed requests for the Court to grant him leave to amend his

petition to add his newly discovered claims and for the Court to

stay proceedings further to allow him to return to state court to

exhaust these claims.

In an Order dated July 11, 2006, the Court lifted the stay

because Petitioner had exhausted his state judicial remedies as to

his original six claims. (July 11, 2006 Order at 6.) The Court

deemed the amended petition that was filed on December 8, 2004 to

be the operative pleading in this action, and denied as unnecessary

Petitioner's request to file a belated amended petition. (Id. at

3.) The Court then directed Respondent to show cause why it should

not grant the petition based on the six exhausted claims in the

amended petition. (Id.) The Court denied Petitioner's request for

leave to add six newly discovered claims and to stay these

proceedings pending the exhaustion of his new claims because he

Case 4:04-cv-02311-CW Document 43 Filed 02/14/08 Page 3 of 12
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 In his brief, Respondent refers to Petitioner's four newly

discovered claims; however, Petitioner requests leave to amend to add

only three newly discovered claims. (Mot. to Amend at 3.) 

4

failed to specify the facts in support of each claim. (Id. at 

5-6.) The Court directed Petitioner to file a motion for leave to

amend to add these newly discovered claims to his amended petition

and for a further stay of these proceedings pending exhaustion. 

(Id.) Also, the Court directed Petitioner to submit a proposed

second amended petition, which clearly stated, with specificity,

the six newly discovered claims. (Id.)

Petitioner did not do so at that time. Instead, on September

15, 2006, he filed a state habeas petition with the California

Supreme Court containing the six newly discovered claims. 

On January 9, 2007, Respondent filed an answer to Petitioner's

amended petition. 

On March 12, 2007, Petitioner filed his traverse. Petitioner

also filed the present motion for leave to amend his first amended

petition to add newly discovered claims and to stay proceedings. 

Instead of filing a proposed second amended petition as the Court

directed, he filed a document entitled "Supplemental Claims to

Petitioner's First Amended Federal Writ of Habeas Corpus"

containing three of the six newly discovered claims.1

On September 19, 2007, Respondent filed an opposition to

Petitioner's motion.

DISCUSSION

I. Motion to Stay

The California Supreme Court's official website shows that on

March 21, 2007, the habeas petition containing the newly discovered

claims was denied. Monkres (Bryan R.) On H.C., Cal. S. Ct. No.

Case 4:04-cv-02311-CW Document 43 Filed 02/14/08 Page 4 of 12
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

5

S146583. Thus, it appears that Petitioner has exhausted his three

newly discovered claims. Accordingly, Petitioner's motion to stay

the proceeding to exhaust these claims is DENIED as moot, because

they are already exhausted.

II. Leave to Amend

Once a responsive pleading has been filed, a habeas petitioner

must obtain leave of court to file an amended petition. Habeas

petitions may be amended or supplemented as provided in the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure. See 28 U.S.C. § 2242; Anthony v. Cambra,

236 F.3d 568, 576 (9th Cir. 2000). Although Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 15(a) requires that leave to amend "shall be freely given

when justice so requires," the Court may consider whether there is

any evidence of undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motives when

determining whether leave to amend should be granted. See Anthony,

236 F.3d at 577-78.

Petitioner now asks this Court to grant him leave to amend his

petition again to add the following violations of his

constitutional rights based on: (1) the trial court's structural

and plain error in admitting against him evidence of pretext phone

calls that were intercepted; (2) the Lake County Sheriff

Department's interception of his conversations during pretext phone

calls, in violation of federal wiretapping statutes; and (3) the

trial court's error in admitting evidence of prior bad acts that

was obtained through illegally recorded pretext phone calls, and

allowing the prosecution to "retry" him on prior bad acts in

violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause. (Mot. for Leave to Amend

at 3.) Respondent argues that Petitioner should not be permitted

to amend his petition because these new claims are barred as

Case 4:04-cv-02311-CW Document 43 Filed 02/14/08 Page 5 of 12
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

6

untimely by the one year statute of limitations for filing habeas

claims in federal court. (Opp'n at 3.) Respondent further argues

that Petitioner's new claims do not arise from a core of operative

facts in common with his original claims and, therefore, they do

not relate back to the filing date of the original petition. (Id.

at 6.) 

A. Delay

Any newly raised claims are subject to review for

untimeliness. Ford v. Hubbard, 330 F.3d 1086, 1105-06 (9th

Cir. 2003), rev'd on other grounds sub nom. Pliler v. Ford,

542 U.S. 225 (2004). 

Federal habeas corpus petitions filed by prisoners challenging

non-capital state convictions or sentences must be filed within one

year of the latest of the date on which: (A) the judgment became

final after the conclusion of direct review or the time passed for

seeking direct review; (B) an impediment to filing an application

created by unconstitutional state action was removed, if such

action prevented petitioner from filing; (C) the constitutional

right asserted was recognized by the Supreme Court, if the right

was newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactive to

cases on collateral review; or (D) the factual predicate of the

claim could have been discovered through the exercise of due

diligence. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1).

The newly discovered claims are untimely under subsection (A)

above, and Petitioner does not argue under subsection (B) that

unconstitutional state impediments to timely filing were recently

removed. Similarly, Petitioner does not argue under subsection (C)

that a newly recognized constitutional right justifies his untimely

Case 4:04-cv-02311-CW Document 43 Filed 02/14/08 Page 6 of 12
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

7

filing. Instead, Petitioner's arguments that he is entitled to

review of his newly discovered claims fall under subsection (D). 

Under subsection (D), the one year limitations period starts

on the date on which "the factual predicate of the claim or claims

presented could have been discovered through the exercise of due

diligence." Section 2244(d)(1)(D) accordingly delays the start of

the limitations period "when the facts on which a federal habeas

claim is based would not have been discovered by a duly diligent

petitioner." Ybanez v. Johnson, 204 F.3d 645, 646 (5th Cir. 2000). 

Petitioner asserts that he failed to exhaust his three newly

discovered claims in state court because the Ninth Circuit and the

California Supreme Court in 2006 issued "favorable rulings that

affected his position on these new claims." (Mot. for Leave to

Amend at 4.) He alleges that the commencement of the statute of

limitations should be delayed under § 2244(d)(1)(D) until he was

made aware of these "favorable rulings." However, the factual

predicate of his newly discovered claims is the pretext phone

calls. The admission of the pretext phone calls was known to him

at the time of his trial over four years ago. (Resp't Ex. 6 at 1.) 

He does not explain why he did not include claims involving the

pretext phone calls in his amended petition. Petitioner is not

entitled to a delayed commencement of the limitations period

because the "favorable rulings" in 2006 are not the "factual

predicate" of his newly-discovered claims. See Hasan v. Galaza,

254 F.3d 1150, 1154 n.3 (9th Cir. 2000) (noting that the statute of

limitations does not start until a petitioner has discovered -- or

with due diligence could have discovered -- the important facts,

not when the prisoner recognizes their legal significance). 

Case 4:04-cv-02311-CW Document 43 Filed 02/14/08 Page 7 of 12
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

8

Further, the new rulings to which Petitioner refers are Kearny

v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc., 39 Cal. 4th 95 (2006), and United

States v. Staffeldt, et al., 451 F.3d 578 (9th Cir. 2006). The

victim consented to being recorded when she called Petitioner at

the behest of law enforcement; therefore, the pretext phone calls

did not violate any wiretapping prohibitions. These cases are not

applicable.

B. Relation Back

Amendments made after the expiration of the one-year statute

of limitations under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty

Act of 1996 (AEDPA) may relate back to the date of the original

pleading if the original and amended pleadings share "a common core

of operative facts." Mayle v. Felix, 125 S. Ct. 2562, 2574-75

(2005). "An amended habeas petition . . . does not relate back

(and thereby escape AEDPA's one year time limit) when it asserts a

new ground for relief supported by facts that differ in both time

and type from those the original pleading set forth." Id.

The foundation of Petitioner's relation back argument is that

his newly discovered claims are based on pretext phone calls which

"unite" all of his claims. (Mot. for Leave to Amend at 6.) 

Petitioner claims that his newly discovered claims "stem from the

existence of the same common core of operative facts, which was the

pre-text phone calls" allowed into evidence by the trial court. 

(Id.) Respondent argues that the three newly discovered claims do

not relate back because they "assert new grounds for relief

supported by facts that differ in both 'time and type' from those

the original pleading set forth." (Opp'n at 5 (quoting Mayle, 

125 S. Ct. at 2566)). 

Case 4:04-cv-02311-CW Document 43 Filed 02/14/08 Page 8 of 12
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 Petitioner did refer to the pretext phone calls in his original

petition as part of his ineffective assistance of counsel claim.

(Pet. at 15-16.) He challenged his trial counsel's failure to move

to suppress the pretext phone calls. (Id. at 16.) However,

Petitioner does not include this claim in his amended petition. (FAP

at 4-A.) Because the amended petition is the operative petition in

this action, Petitioner's newly discovered claims do not share "a

9

First, Petitioner argues that his constitutional rights were

violated when the trial court admitted wiretap evidence against

him. (Mot. for Leave to Amend at 3.) One of the claims in

Petitioner's original and amended petitions challenges the trial

court's admission of prior bad acts of molestation of the victim

when she was between the ages of twelve and fourteen. (First Am.

Pet. (FAP) at 4-A.) Respondent contends that this claim did not

relate to any wiretap evidence. Respondent also argues that the

pretext phone calls were not related to any prior sexual conduct

between Petitioner and the victim. However, the record shows that,

in the course of Petitioner's recorded pretext phone calls with the

victim, Petitioner "admitted his sexual behavior when [the victim]

lived with him between the ages of twelve and fourteen." (Resp't

Ex. 6 at 3.) The pretext phone calls provided evidence of prior

bad acts against the victim. However, in the original petition,

Petitioner objects to the admission of evidence of prior bad acts

of molestation that was "adduced to the court from documents

requested and received from the Arizona authorities." (Pet. at

21.) At that time, Petitioner's objection to the evidence was that

it was based on unfounded allegations. (Id. at 22.) Nowhere in

Petitioner's original and amended petitions does he challenge the

admission of evidence of prior bad acts against the victim because

it was revealed in illegally intercepted pretext phone calls.2

Case 4:04-cv-02311-CW Document 43 Filed 02/14/08 Page 9 of 12
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

common core of operative facts" with any pending claim.

10

Second, Petitioner claims that his constitutional rights were

violated when the Lake County Sheriff's Department illegally

intercepted his phone conversations with the victim. Unlike his

claim of the improper admission of prior bad acts evidence in the

amended petition, Petitioner's newly discovered claim relating to

the intercepted phone conversations challenges the way the evidence

was obtained. 

Finally, Petitioner alleges that the trial court violated the

double jeopardy clause by allowing the prosecution to "retry" him

on prior bad acts that he admitted in the pretext phone calls. 

Petitioner argues that the introduction of his prior bad acts

caused him to receive a longer sentence. Although his original and

amended petitions object to the trial court's admission of evidence

of prior bad acts, neither petition alleges a double jeopardy

violation. In any event, this double jeopardy claim is without

merit. 

Having reviewed Petitioner's petition, amended petition and

supplemental claims, the Court finds that his newly discovered

claims assert new grounds for relief supported by facts that are

different than those that support his original claims; therefore,

they do not relate back to the date of the original pleading and,

thus, are untimely.

CONCLUSION

Petitioner's proposed new claims are time-barred. 

Accordingly, the Court DENIES the request to amend the

petition (docket no. 37). 

Case 4:04-cv-02311-CW Document 43 Filed 02/14/08 Page 10 of 12
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

P:\PRO-SE\CW\HC.04\Monkres2311.denyAMENDdenySTAY.frm 11

Petitioner's amended petition is deemed submitted and ready

for review on the merits.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 2/14/08 ______________________________

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:04-cv-02311-CW Document 43 Filed 02/14/08 Page 11 of 12
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

P:\PRO-SE\CW\HC.04\Monkres2311.denyAMENDdenySTAY.frm 12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MONKRES,

Plaintiff,

 v.

KERNAN et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV04-02311 CW 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District

Court, Northern District of California.

That on February 14, 2008, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said

copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said

envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle

located in the Clerk's office.

Bryan Randall Monkres T-50137

Mule Creek State Prison

P.O. Box 409000

A-1-132-L

Ione, CA 95640-9000

Peter Ernest Flores

California Attorney General’s Office

455 Golden Gate Ave., Suite 11000

San Francisco, CA 94102-7004

Dated: February 14, 2008

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Sheilah Cahill, Deputy Clerk

Case 4:04-cv-02311-CW Document 43 Filed 02/14/08 Page 12 of 12