Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01723/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01723-11/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANGEL M. GARZA,

Petitioner,

v.

TAMMY CAMPBELL, Warden,

Respondent.

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

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

TO DENY MOTION FOR STAY

[Doc. 38]

[21-DAY OBJECTION DEADLINE]

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis with a petition for writ of 

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s motion to 

stay the proceedings in this action under Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 277 (2005). For reasons 

that follow, the Court will recommend that Petitioner’s motion for stay be DENIED. 

I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On January 12, 2018, a Kings County jury found Petitioner guilty of 14 felonies involving 

molestation of his young daughter over a three-year period. (Doc. 34-47 at 1-6.) Petitioner was 

sentenced to an indeterminate prison term of 55 years to life for committing sodomy on a child 

under 10 years old, and he was sentenced to a determinate term of 127 years and six months for 

the remaining sex offenses. On January 26, 2023, the California Court of Appeal modified the 

determinate sentence to 88 years and eight months and affirmed the judgment. (Doc. 34-46.) 

Petitioner then petitioned for review in the California Supreme Court. (Doc. 34-48.) On 

Case 1:23-cv-01723-JLT-SKO Document 39 Filed 11/07/24 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

27

28

2

April 12, 2023, the California Supreme Court summarily denied review. (Doc. 34-49.) Petitioner 

filed a habeas petition in the California Court of Appeal on August 16, 2023. (Doc. 34-50.) The 

petition was denied on October 26, 2023. (Doc. 34-51.)

On December 15, 2023, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in this Court. 

(Doc. 1.) Respondent filed an answer on August 19, 2024. (Doc. 35.) The deadline for Petitioner 

to file a traverse was set for September 18, 2024. (Doc. 30.) Petitioner requested an extension of 

time to file his traverse. (Doc. 36.) On September 12, 2024, the Court granted Petitioner an 

extension to and including October 18, 2024, to file a traverse. (Doc. 37.) On October 7, 2024, 

Petitioner filed a motion requesting a stay and abeyance to exhaust state remedies in lieu of filing 

a traverse. (Doc. 38.) Respondent failed to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to the 

motion.

II. DISCUSSION

Petitioner requests that the petition be stayed and held in abeyance pursuant to Rhines v. 

Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005). A district court has discretion to stay and allow a petitioner to return 

to state court to exhaust state remedies. Rhines, 544 U.S. at 277. However, the Supreme Court 

has held that this discretion is circumscribed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty 

Act of 1996 (AEDPA). Id. In light of AEDPA’s objectives, “stay and abeyance [is] available 

only in limited circumstances.” Id. at 277. Specifically, the Court said a stay is appropriate only 

when (1) good cause exists for petitioner’s failure to exhaust; (2) petitioner’s unexhausted claims 

are not “plainly meritless” and (3) there is no indication that petitioner engaged in “abusive 

litigation tactics or intentional delay.” Id. at 277-278; Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1149 

(9th Cir. 2005). When a petitioner has met these requirements, his interest in obtaining federal 

review of his claims outweighs the competing interests in finality and speedy resolution of federal 

petitions. Rhines, 544 U.S. at 278.

The Court does not find good cause for Petitioner’s failure to exhaust. Petitioner states he 

is seeking to introduce evidence that was not presented to the state courts on direct or collateral 

review because they are new exhibits being introduced to rebut a point or argument that was 

raised by Respondent for the first time in this habeas action. However, Petitioner does not state 

Case 1:23-cv-01723-JLT-SKO Document 39 Filed 11/07/24 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

27

28

3

what argument or point raised by Respondent merits rebuttal with this new evidence. After 

reviewing Petitioner’s submission, the Court finds little relevance and no value to the evidence.

Although Petitioner contends it purports to show actual innocence because he had a viable alibi 

defense to count 15 (Rape with bodily injury), he does not contest count 15 in any of his grounds 

for relief, nor did he raise a claim of actual innocence. To the extent Petitioner now seeks to 

claim innocence of count 15, the claim is untimely. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d)(1). 

Moreover, the 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, 2024 - due to an emergency. (Doc. 

38 at 21.) The record shows the absence was reported by the mother with a notation of their outof-town grandmother. (Doc. 38 at 21.) This does not show that the children were not at home on 

December 3, 2024. In fact, the evidence shows the opposite as the attendance record reflects the 

children were in attendance on December 3, 2024, 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.

Case 1:23-cv-01723-JLT-SKO Document 39 Filed 11/07/24 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

27

28

4

In summary, Petitioner fails to show good cause for his delay in presenting his claim, and 

any unexhausted claims of actual innocence or ineffective assistance of counsel based on this 

evidence are plainly without merit. 

III. RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, the Court RECOMMENDS that Petitioner’s motion for stay be 

DENIED. This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Court 

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 

of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. 

Within twenty-one (21) days after being served with a copy of this Findings and 

Recommendation, a party may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all 

parties. Id. The document should be captioned, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 

Recommendation” and shall not exceed fifteen (15) pages, except by leave of court with good 

cause shown. The Court will not consider exhibits attached to the Objections. To the extent a 

party wishes to refer to any exhibit(s), the party should reference the exhibit in the record by its 

CM/ECF document and page number, when possible, or otherwise reference the exhibit with 

specificity. Any pages filed in excess of the fifteen (15) page limitation may be disregarded by the 

District Judge when reviewing these Findings and Recommendations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 

(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 

result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 

2014). This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth Circuit 

Court of Appeals. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 7, 2024 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-01723-JLT-SKO Document 39 Filed 11/07/24 Page 4 of 4