Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00824/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00824-3/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

TONY TAFOYA,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-05-0824 FCD GGH P

vs.

J. Yates, Warden, et al., 

Respondents. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Petitioner, proceeding with appointed counsel, has moved for a stay and abeyance

of the first amended petition, filed on January 13, 2006, for the purpose of exhausting three new

claims to which respondent, on February 7, 2006, has filed a statement of non-opposition. The

new, unexhausted claims include the following: Claim 8 — Ineffective assistance of appellate

counsel who failed to notice or raise on direct appeal the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury

with CALJIC 2.90 which informs the jury of the presumption of innocence and defines proof

beyond a reasonable doubt; Claim 9 — Denial of due process of law by the trial court’s

failure to instruct the jury on the principles of the presumption of innocence and to define the

prosecution’s burden of proof of beyond a reasonable doubt; and Claim 10 —Violation of

petitioner’s right to a jury trial under the Sixth Amendment in the trial court’s failure to instruct

the jury on the principles of the presumption of innocence and to define the prosecution’s burden

Case 2:05-cv-00824-FCD-GGH Document 21 Filed 03/13/06 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

2

of proof of beyond a reasonable doubt. 

Respondent states that the California Supreme Court should be given an

opportunity to determine whether there has been a violation of state law set forth in the new

claims, but does not thereby concede that these as-yet-unexhausted claims are not subject to

procedural bars or that they are timely. Rather, respondent avers that these issues can be

addressed upon the lifting of any stay. 

As respondent posits no objection to a stay and abeyance of this matter, raising no

question as to whether good cause has been shown for bringing the claims at this point or

challenging the claims on the merits, the court will recommend that the matter be stayed pending

exhaustion of the new claims enumerated above. See Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 125 S. Ct.

1528 (2005). However, petitioner should be required to notify the court within thirty days of a

decision by the state supreme court as to the claims at issue so that the stay may be lifted and this

matter proceed.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Petitioner’s unopposed motion for a stay and abeyance, filed January 13, 2006,

be granted and this matter be stayed pending exhaustion of Claims 8, 9, and 10, as set forth

above; and

2. Petitioner be directed to file a notice to this court of exhaustion of his state

court remedies as to Claims 8, 9, and 10, within thirty days of the filing of the decision by the

state supreme court.

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 ten days after service of the objections. The parties are advised 

Case 2:05-cv-00824-FCD-GGH Document 21 Filed 03/13/06 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

3

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: 3/13/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009

tafo0824.fr

Case 2:05-cv-00824-FCD-GGH Document 21 Filed 03/13/06 Page 3 of 3