Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00863/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00863-1/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 

18CV0863 GPC (JMA) 

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 

RONALD DUANE DUNHAM, 

Petitioner,

vs. 

RIVERSIDE COUNTY SHERIFF, 

STAN SHIFF, et al., 

Respondents.

 Case No.: 18CV0863 GPC (JMA) 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

RE PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR 

STAY [ECF No. 5] 

 Petitioner Ronald Duane Dunham moves to stay a state court restitution 

proceeding in San Diego Superior Court pending a decision on his petition to this 

Court for a writ of habeas corpus. (ECF No. 5.) The Court recommends the 

motion be DENIED. 

 On December 14, 2014, Petitioner was convicted by a jury of seven counts 

of grand theft, six counts of elder theft, seven counts of security fraud, and one 

count of perjury in San Diego Superior Court Case No. SCD246838. (Pet., ECF 

No. 1 at 1.) He was sentenced to twelve years in state prison. Id. He was 

released from prison on October 13, 2017 and is currently on community 

supervision in Riverside County with a projected release date of October 11, 

Case 3:18-cv-00863-GPC-LL Document 10 Filed 05/30/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2 

18CV0863 GPC (JMA) 

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

2018. Id. On February 7, 2018, the California Court of Appeal reversed the 

convictions for grand theft involving elder adults and attendant true findings on 

loss enhancements, but affirmed the judgment in all other respects. Id. at 2-3. 

On April 18, 2018, the California Supreme Court denied a petition for review. Id.

at 3 & 152. Petitioner did not seek collateral review in state court. Id. at 4. On 

May 4, 2018, Petitioner filed his federal petition for writ of habeas corpus in this 

Court. 

 Prior to Petitioner’s trial, the trial court froze the bank accounts of a 

company controlled by Petitioner, Rodan Enterprises, LLC (“Rodan”), pursuant to 

California Penal Code section 186.11 to preserve assets for victim restitution. 

(Pet., Ex. D, ECF No. 1 at 327.)1 Section 186.11, known as the “Freeze and 

Seize Law,” is designed to provide restitution to victims of white collar crimes 

from assets under the convicted criminal’s control. Id. At trial, the jury found a 

section 186.11 aggravated white collar crime enhancement allegation to be true. 

Id. Scott Lee, a third party claimant who was not involved in Petitioner’s criminal 

activities, asserted he had invested $400,000 in Rodan and was entitled to 

recover that amount from the frozen funds. Id. at 328. On February 5, 2016, at 

the restitution hearing, the court ordered (1) the named victims in the 

prosecution’s charging document would receive full restitution for their losses and 

(2) any remaining funds would be paid to two individuals, one of whom was Mr. 

Lee. Id. On February 7, 2018, the California Court of Appeal denied a petition 

for writ of mandamus filed by Mr. Lee, finding the trial court was not required to 

distribute an equitable share of the frozen funds to Mr. Lee, and vacated the stay 

it had previously issued as to the trial court’s restitution order. Id. at 338-39. On 

                                               

1 The background information set forth in this paragraph is taken from a decision of the 

California Court of Appeal in Scott Lee v. Superior Court of San Diego County, Case No. 

D070075. Mr. Lee was a third party claimant seeking to appeal the trial court’s restitution 

order in Petitioner’s case. (Pet., Ex. D., ECF No. 1 at 327.) 

Case 3:18-cv-00863-GPC-LL Document 10 Filed 05/30/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3 

18CV0863 GPC (JMA) 

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

April 18, 2018, the California Supreme Court denied a petition for review, and 

dissolved the stay of the restitution order it had previously granted in order to 

consider the petition for review. Id. at 324-25. 

 Federal judges may stay any state court proceeding for any matter involved 

in a habeas corpus proceeding. 29 U.S.C. § 2251(a)(1). Whether to grant a stay 

is in the “sound discretion” of the court. McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 857-

58 (1994). Under principles of comity and federalism, a federal court should not 

interfere with ongoing state criminal proceedings by granting injunctive or 

declaratory relief absent extraordinary circumstances. Younger v. Harris, 401 

U.S. 37, 43-46 (1971) (extraordinary circumstances exist when there is danger of 

great and immediate irreparable loss); Carden v. Montana, 626 F.2d 82, 84 (9th 

Cir. 1980) (applying Younger to habeas petition challenging state pretrial 

proceedings; federal intervention appropriate only under “special circumstances,” 

such as proven harassment, bad faith prosecution, or other extraordinary 

circumstances resulting in irreparable injury). Any irreparable injury must be 

beyond “that incidental to every criminal proceeding brought lawfully and in good 

faith.” Younger, 401 U.S. at 46-47. 

 Petitioner argues a stay of the restitution proceedings should be granted 

because he has raised thirteen grounds in his federal habeas petition, the 

California Court of Appeal and California Supreme Court issued stays, and 

Petitioner and innocent third parties will suffer irreparable injury if the stay is not 

granted as the restitution order permits the seizure and distribution of assets 

belonging to Petitioner and others who were not charged with any criminal 

offenses. (Motion, ECF No. 5 at 3.) Petitioner further contends a stay would not 

substantially harm any other parties as the assets have remained frozen since 

2013 and are not in any danger of being removed. Id. 

 These reasons are insufficient to stay the state court restitution order and 

proceedings. The harm asserted by Petitioner is not irreparable, as loss of 

Case 3:18-cv-00863-GPC-LL Document 10 Filed 05/30/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4 

18CV0863 GPC (JMA) 

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

money can be remedied by an award of damages. Petitioner does not want to 

pay restitution before his federal habeas proceeding is concluded on the chance 

his convictions will be overturned, but this same sentiment is likely held by the 

majority of habeas petitioners who are ordered to pay restitution. Petitioner has 

been convicted, and the state appellate courts have, in substantial part, upheld 

his convictions. Mr. Lee’s third party claim to the frozen assets has been 

considered by the state trial and appellate courts, and his request for relief was 

denied. Petitioner has not identified any special circumstances warranting a 

stay. 

 The Court accordingly recommends Petitioner’s motion for stay be 

DENIED. This report and recommendation will be submitted to the Honorable 

Gonzalo P. Curiel, United States District Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to 

the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Any party may file written objections with 

the Court and serve a copy on all parties on or before June 13, 2018. The 

document should be captioned “Objections to Report and Recommendation.” 

Any reply to the Objections shall be served and filed on or before June 27, 2018. 

The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 

waive the right to appeal the district court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 

(9th Cir. 1991). 

Dated: May 30, 2018 

Case 3:18-cv-00863-GPC-LL Document 10 Filed 05/30/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4