Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01723/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01723-12/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANGEL M. GARZA,

Petitioner,

v.

TAMMY CAMPBELL, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:23-cv-01723 JLT SKO (HC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING 

PETITIONERS’ MOTION FOR A STAY

(Docs. 38, 39)

Angel M. Garza is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a petition 

for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner requests the petition be stayed 

and the matter held in abeyance for him to exhaust his state remedies. (Doc. 38.) This matter 

was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local 

Rule 302.

The magistrate judge found Petitioner failed to show good cause for his failure to 

exhaust. (Doc. 39 at 2.) In addition, the magistrate judge found that to the extent Petitioner 

sought to claim actual innocence to Count 15, rape with bodily injury, such a claim was 

untimely. (Id. at 31.) Further, the magistrate judge reviewed the evidence Petitioner submitted to 

1 The magistrate judge cited 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d)(1) to support the determination that the claim related to count 15

was untimely. However, it appears the magistrate judge intended to cite 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1), which provides in 

relevant part: “A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to an application for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in 

custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court.”

Case 1:23-cv-01723-JLT-SKO Document 41 Filed 12/05/24 Page 1 of 3
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

support his claim of actual innocence and to establish an alibi defense, and determined there was

“little relevance and no value to the evidence.” (Id. at 3.) The magistrate judge found:

[T]he evidence does not show actual innocence or provide an alibi 

defense. In count 15, Petitioner was convicted of raping his young 

daughter on or about December 3, 2014. (Doc. 34-1 at 278.) 

Petitioner’s purported alibi evidence reflects that Petitioner was 

arrested and taken into custody on December 3, 2014, at 11:46 

p.m. for alleged spousal abuse. (Doc. 38 at 14.) Petitioner’s 

contention that his arrest fourteen minutes before the end of that 

day somehow demonstrates he could not have committed the 

alleged rape in the 23 hours and 46 minutes before his arrest is 

frivolous.

Petitioner contends that the evidence further shows that the 

children were not home at the relevant time but staying with their 

grandmother. The school attendance record, however, shows that 

the children were absent the following day - December 4, [2014] -

due to an emergency. (Doc. 38 at 21.) The record shows the 

absence was reported by the mother with a notation of their out-oftown grandmother. (Doc. 38 at 21.) This does not show that the 

children were not at home on December 3, [2014]. In fact, the 

evidence shows the opposite as the attendance record reflects the

children were in attendance on December 3, [2014], and not absent 

as Petitioner contends. The evidence is therefore consistent with 

the timeline of events alleged and provides no basis for Petitioner’s 

alleged alibi defense.

Second, the evidence is not newly discovered as it was 

clearly available at the time of trial. Petitioner contends that trial 

counsel failed to present the evidence as part of an alibi defense, 

but Petitioner unjustifiably failed to make any such claim until 

now. The claim could have been presented on direct appeal or via 

habeas petition prior to filing his federal petition. In any event, as 

previously discussed, the evidence was immaterial. There is no 

question defense counsel was not unreasonable in failing to present 

the evidence in support of an alibi defense.

(Doc. 39 at 32.) The magistrate judge concluded that “any unexhausted claims of actual 

innocence or ineffective assistance of counsel based on this evidence are plainly without merit.” 

(Id. at 4.) Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended a stay be denied. (Id.)

Petitioner filed timely objections to the Findings and Recommendations, generally reasserting the matter should be stayed for him to exhaust his claims and demonstrate his actual 

innocence. (See generally Doc. 40 at 1-9.) As an initial matter, Petitioner contends the 

magistrate judge’s review of the evidence was premature. (Id. at 3.) However, the Court is 

2 The Findings and Recommendations contained typographical errors, indicating the referenced school records were 

from 2024. These dates are corrected to 2014.

Case 1:23-cv-01723-JLT-SKO Document 41 Filed 12/05/24 Page 2 of 3
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

required to determine whether the unexhausted claims are “plainly meritless” pursuant to Rhines 

v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 277-278 (2005). Consequently, the Court was entitled to review the 

evidence Petitioner submitted in evaluating whether his assertions have merit.

Although Petitioner maintains the children were not home on the date identified, he does 

not otherwise dispute the magistrate judge’s findings related to what the evidence shows—or 

does not show—such as the school records not showing an absence on December 3, 2014. The 

school absence on December 4, 2014 does not support a conclusion that the children were not 

home the night before. As the magistrate judge found, there is “little relevance and no value” to 

this submitted evidence. Moreover, Petitioner does not identify any evidence to show that a 

claim of actual innocence as to Count 15 is timely under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1).

According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. 

Having carefully reviewed the matter, including Petitioner’s objections, the Court concludes the 

Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. Petitioner does 

not show good cause for the delay in exhaustion and does not identify evidence to support a 

conclusion that his unexhausted claims are not “plainly meritless” as required under Rhines. 

Thus, the Court ORDERS:

1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on November 7, 2024 (Doc. 39) are

ADOPTED in full.

2. Petitioner’s motion for stay (Doc. 38) is DENIED.

3. Petitioner SHALL file a traverse within 30 days from the date of this order.

4. The matter is referred to the magistrate judge for further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 4, 2024 

Case 1:23-cv-01723-JLT-SKO Document 41 Filed 12/05/24 Page 3 of 3