Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_00-cv-02209/USCOURTS-caed-2_00-cv-02209-3/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL MICKEY FRADIUE,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-00-2209 WBS JFM P

vs.

CHERYL K. PLILER, et al.,

Respondents FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding through counsel with an application for a

writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner challenges his 1998 conviction for

possession of heroin on June 26, 1997 in state prison. The jury found true petitioner’s seven

prior convictions. (CT 153-65.) Petitioner was acquitted of charges he possessed marijuana and

heroin on November 25, 1997 in state prison. 

On April 25, 2005, counsel was appointed to represent petitioner. On June 3,

2005, the parties were ordered to submit supplemental briefing. On August 2, 2005, petitioner

filed a motion to stay and abey the instant action while petitioner returns to state court to exhaust

state court remedies. On August 25, 2005, respondents filed an opposition to petitioner’s

motion.

/////

Case 2:00-cv-02209-MCE -KJN Document 19 Filed 09/09/05 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

 In Miranda v. Arizona, the United States Supreme Court held that custodial 1

interrogation must be preceded by advice to the potential defendant that he has the right to

consult with a lawyer, the right to remain silent and that anything he says can be used in evidence

against him. 384 U.S. 436, 469-73 (1966). 

2

Petitioner’s motion to stay and abey this case came on regularly for hearing

September 8, 2005. Carolyn M. Wiggin, Assistant Federal Defender, appeared for petitioner. 

John A. Thawley, Deputy Attorney General, appeared for respondents. Upon review of the

motion and the documents in support and opposition, upon hearing the arguments of counsel and

good cause appearing therefor, THE COURT FINDS AS FOLLOWS:

I. October 11, 2000 Petition

Petitioner raises two claims in his 2000 petition. First, petitioner alleges his Fifth

Amendment right to remain silent, as well as his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process,

were violated by the admission of statements taken from him in prison by a correctional officer

investigating an alleged crime because petitioner was not first given Miranda warnings. 1

Second, petitioner alleges his 25 years-to-life sentence for possessing .08 grams of

heroin while in prison violates the Eighth Amendment proscription against cruel and unusual

punishment. 

II. Petitioner’s Motion to Stay and Abey

Petitioner seeks a stay of this action pending exhaustion of state remedies as to his

claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Specifically, petitioner now alleges defense

counsel was ineffective at the suppression hearing, held on the Miranda violation claim, because

counsel failed to more fully elicit the facts surrounding the circumstances of petitioner’s

inculpatory statement to Callahan. Respondents oppose the motion, contending that petitioner

has failed to show “good cause” for his failure to exhaust the claim in state court before raising

them in this action, and that the claims are “plainly meritless” because petitioner cannot

demonstrate prejudice from defense counsel’s allegedly deficient performance. 

Case 2:00-cv-02209-MCE -KJN Document 19 Filed 09/09/05 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

3

In Rhines v. Weber, U.S. , 125 S.Ct. 1528 (2005), the United States

Supreme Court held that a district court has authority to stay a mixed petition pending exhaustion

of unexhausted claims in “limited circumstances,” i.e., “when the district court determines there

was good cause for the petitioner's failure to exhaust his claims first in state court.” Id. at 1535. 

The Court also held that it would be an abuse of discretion to stay federal habeas corpus

proceedings pending exhaustion of a “plainly meritless” claim. Id. 

Here, the question of “good cause” for the failure to first exhaust the new claim in

state court is intertwined with petitioner’s claim that defense counsel was ineffective in his

efforts to suppress the statements challenged under Miranda. Considerations of comity dictate

that the state courts be first given an opportunity to consider that claim before this court

addresses its merits. See Rhines, at 1532-33 (citing Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (1982)). 

Moreover, the record presently before this court does not support a finding that petitioner’s

Miranda claim is “plainly meritless.” See Mathis v. United States, 391 U.S. 1 (1968) (reversed

conviction for tax fraud because incriminating statements obtained by an IRS agent while the

defendant was incarcerated in state prison on other charges had not been preceded by Miranda

warnings). There is no evidence petitioner has engaged in dilatory litigation tactics. Rhines at

1535.

For the foregoing reasons, petitioner’s motion to stay should be granted and

petitioner should be directed to file a motion to lift the stay not later than thirty days after

resolution of his unexhausted claims by the California Supreme Court. See Rhines, at 1535.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Petitioner’s August 2, 2005 motion to stay be granted; 

2. This action be stayed pending exhaustion of state remedies as to petitioner’s

claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel as it relates to petitioner’s Miranda claim;

/////

/////

Case 2:00-cv-02209-MCE -KJN Document 19 Filed 09/09/05 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

4

3. Petitioner be directed to file a motion to lift the stay within thirty days from the

date of any order by the California Supreme Court resolving the claims referred to in paragraph 2

of this recommendation; and

4. The Clerk of the Court be directed to administratively close this case.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within ten days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within five days after service of the objections. 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: September 8, 2005.

1frad2209.sta

Case 2:00-cv-02209-MCE -KJN Document 19 Filed 09/09/05 Page 4 of 4