Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00174/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00174-0/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)

---

1

17-cv-0174-CAB-AGS

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

Andrew MUNDY,

Petitioner,

v.

Raymond MADDEN,

Respondent.

Case No.: 17-cv-0174-CAB-AGS

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

TO DENY PETITIONER’S MOTION 

FOR A STAY (ECF No. 6) AND 

DISMISS UNEXHAUSTED CLAIM

The California Court of Appeal previously ruled that petitioner Andrew Mundy’s 

lengthy sentence passed constitutional muster, and that he was “precisely the type of 

recidivist offender targeted by [California’s] Three Strikes law.” (ECF No. 10-1, at 19; see 

id. at 12-17.) In this habeas proceeding, Mundy seeks review of that ruling and also raises 

a new argument never presented to the state courts: that his trial and appellate attorneys 

were ineffective for failing to challenge the constitutionality of his sentence. But his 

attorneys did contest the constitutionality of his sentence,

1 and the state appellate court 

 

1 Appellate counsel urged the California Court of Appeal to reach the constitutional 

sentencing issue because either: (1) the trial attorney’s general sentencing objections

adequately preserved the claim or (2) the failure to raise more specific objections 

constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. (ECF No. 6, Exh. A, at 9-11.) The appellate 

court never addressed the waiver argument and presumably found the issue preserved 

below. (See generally ECF No. 10-1.)

Case 3:17-cv-00174-CAB-AGS Document 11 Filed 12/04/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

17-cv-0174-CAB-AGS

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

squarely rejected that argument. Thus, Mundy’s new claim is plainly meritless. And his 

motion for a stay to pursue this unexhausted claim, therefore, fails.

Mundy seeks a stay under either Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005), or Kelly v. 

Small, 315 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2003), overruled on other gds. by Robbins v. Carey, 481 

F.3d 1143 (9th Cir. 2007). But neither a Rhines stay nor a Kelly stay should be granted to 

exhaust a plainly meritless claim. Rhines, 544 U.S. at 277 (“[T]he district court would 

abuse its discretion if it were to grant [the petitioner] a [Rhines] stay when his unexhausted 

claims are plainly meritless.” (citation omitted)); Knowles v. Muniz, 228 F. Supp. 3d 1009, 

1016 (C.D. Cal. 2017) (“[A] Kelly stay will be denied when the court finds such a stay 

would be futile,” such as when “petitioner seeks a stay to exhaust a meritless claim.” 

(citations omitted)).

The Court recommends that Mundy’s motion for a stay be DENIED and that his 

unexhausted ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim be DISMISSED. Upon being served 

with a copy of this report, each party has 14 days to file any objections. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 

72(b)(2). A party may respond to any such objection within 14 days of being served with 

it. See id.

Dated: December 4, 2017

Case 3:17-cv-00174-CAB-AGS Document 11 Filed 12/04/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2