Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01527/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01527-0/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

06cv1527-WQH (JMA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NELSON R. ACOSTA,

Petitioner,

v.

G.J. GIURBINO (Warden),

Respondent. 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 06-CV-1527-WQH (JMA)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

REGARDING PETITIONER’S “MOTION

FOR DISTRICT COURT TO HOLD

DIRECT APPEAL IN ABEYANCE

WHILE UNEXHAUSTED CLAIMS ARE

LITIGATED IN STATE COURT”

On August 25, 2004, a jury convicted Petitioner of firstdegree robbery (Cal. Penal Code §§ 211 & 212.5) with personal use

of a firearm (§§ 12022.5(a) & 12022.53(b)), residential burglary

(§§ 459 & 460) with personal use of a firearm (§§ 12022.5(a)),

two counts of assault with a firearm (§ 245(a)(2)) with personal

use of a firearm (§ 12022.5(a)), false imprisonment (§§ 236 & 237

(a)), making a criminal threat (§ 422), drawing or exhibiting a

firearm (§ 417(a)(2)), dissuading a witness by force or threat

(§ 136.1(c)(1)) with personal use of a firearm (§ 12022.5(a)),

and receiving stolen property (§ 496(a)). (California Superior

Case 3:06-cv-01527-WQH-JMA Document 10 Filed 09/21/07 Page 1 of 6
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 06cv1527-WQH (JMA)

Court Order Denying Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Case No.

HC18612/SCD 181033, lodged by Respondent as Lodgment 4 in support

of Opp’n to Petitioner’s Motion (“Lod 4") at 1.) On September

22, 2004, the court sentenced Petitioner to the middle term of

four years for robbery plus ten (10) years for the attendant

weapon enhancement (§ 12022.53), a consecutive one year (onethird the middle term) for each of the two assaults, a

consecutive one year, four months (one-third the middle term) for

each of the weapon enhancements attached to the assaults, and a

consecutive eight months (one-third the middle term) for

receiving stolen property, for a total term of 19 years, four

months in state prison. (Id. at 1-2; First Amended Petition

(“FAP”) [Doc No. 5] at 1-2.)

Petitioner appealed his conviction and sentence, raising two

claims. (FAP at 2.) The California Court of Appeal, Fourth

District, Division One, affirmed the San Diego County Superior

Court’s judgment on August 26, 2005 in Case No. DO45126, and the

California Supreme Court denied Petitioner’s Petition for Review

on November 2, 2005. (FAP at 2; Printout of Case Summary

regarding Petition for Review filed in the California Supreme

Court, Case No. S137639, lodged by Respondent in support of Opp’n

to the Motion (“Lod 3").)

On October 12, 2006, Petitioner filed nunc pro tunc a First

Amended Petition in this Court, alleging two claims: (1) that the

trial court violated the U.S. Constitution in imposing a

consecutive sentence for the assault charge, and (2) that the

evidence at trial was constitutionally insufficient to support a

finding that Petitioner received stolen goods. (FAP at 6-7.) On

Case 3:06-cv-01527-WQH-JMA Document 10 Filed 09/21/07 Page 2 of 6
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 06cv1527-WQH (JMA)

May 25, 2007, Petitioner filed a “Motion for District Court to

Hold Direct Appeal in Abeyance While Unexhausted Claims are

Litigated in State Court” (“the Motion”). [Doc. No. 6.] On May

29, 2007, the Court filed an Order Requiring Response to the

Motion [Doc. No. 7] and, on June 20, 2007, Respondent filed an

opposition to the Motion. [Doc. No. 9.] Petitioner was ordered

to file a reply to Respondent’s opposition not later than August

31, 2007, but did not do so.

Petitioner seeks an order staying the proceedings in this

Court while he exhausts state remedies as to the following

additional claims not presented in the First Amended Petition:

(1) ineffective assistance of counsel (based on five (5) separate

grounds); (2) violation of 4th Amendment protections in obtaining

evidence used to convict him; and (3) prosecutorial misconduct

(based on three (3) separate grounds). (Motion at 1.) For the

reasons outlined below, the Court recommends that the Motion be

DENIED for failure to show good cause.

Under Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005), a district court

has discretion to grant a stay and abeyance of a mixed petition

if: (1) “the petitioner had good cause for his failure to

exhaust”; (2) “his unexhausted claims are potentially

meritorious”; and (3) “there is no indication that the petitioner

engaged in intentionally dilatory litigation tactics.” Rhines,

544 U.S. at 278. 

The Supreme Court made clear in Rhines that because staying

a federal habeas petition frustrates AEDPA’s objective of

encouraging finality by allowing a petitioner to delay the

resolution of federal proceedings and undermines AEDPA’s goal of

Case 3:06-cv-01527-WQH-JMA Document 10 Filed 09/21/07 Page 3 of 6
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

 The magistrate judge notes that Respondent correctly points out

that Petitioner did not even raise the three unexhausted claims in the

First Amended Petition. Thus, the First Amended Petition is not

technically a “mixed petition,” and Rhines contemplates a petition

that includes both the exhausted and unexhausted claims. Rhines, 544

U.S. at 278. However, because Petitioner actually submitted the

Motion (containing the proposed additional claims to be exhausted

during a stay) at the same time that he submitted the First Amended

Petition, the magistrate judge considers the First Amended Petition

and the Motion together for purposes of an analysis under Rhines. (See Doc. No. 4.) 

4 06cv1527-WQH (JMA)

streamlining federal habeas proceedings by decreasing a

petitioner’s incentive to first exhaust all his claims in state

court, “stay and abeyance should be available only in limited

circumstances.” Rhines, 544 U.S. at 277. As a threshold matter,

“[b]ecause granting a stay effectively excuses a petitioner’s

failure to present his claims first to the state courts, stay and

abeyance is only appropriate when the district court determines

there was good cause for the petitioner’s failure to exhaust his

claims first in state court.” Id.

Petitioner has not even attempted to show good cause for his

failure to exhaust the additional claims in state court prior to

filing his First Amended Petition in this Court.1 In the Motion,

Petitioner makes the conclusory statement that “after the

appellate counsel’s relief from representation and Petitioner

received the trial transcripts, Petitioner commenced a thorough

research to support these new claims that are presently being

exhausted.” (Motion at 2.) This is the extent of Petitioner’s

statement of good cause for granting a stay, and it is

insufficient.

//

//

//

Case 3:06-cv-01527-WQH-JMA Document 10 Filed 09/21/07 Page 4 of 6
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

5 06cv1527-WQH (JMA)

In addition, Petitioner makes no showing at all with regard

to the second and third Rhines factors (whether the claims are

potentially meritorious and whether he engaged in unreasonable

delay in bringing the claims). Even after Respondent opposed the

Motion, and set out in clear terms the standard that must be met

under Rhines, Petitioner failed to file a reply and even attempt

to satisfy the legal standard. Moreover, the three newlyasserted claims (that Petitioner’s trial counsel was ineffective,

that evidence used against him was obtained unconstitutionally,

and the prosecutor committed misconduct) relate directly to

matters that occurred during the trial, which means that

Petitioner was or should have been aware of them at the time he

chose to initiate collateral review. Petitioner’s unsupported

statement is wholly insufficient to support staying this federal

action. 

Because Petitioner has not fulfilled the requirements of

Rhines, the Court recommends that the Motion be DENIED.

This Report and Recommendation is submitted to the Honorable

William Q. Hayes, United States District Judge assigned to this

case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

IT IS ORDERED that no later than October 19, 2007 any party

may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on

all parties. The document should be captioned “Objections to

Report and Recommendation.” 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any reply to the objections shall

be served and filed no later than October 29, 2007. The parties

are advised that failure to file objections within the specified

time may waive the right to raise those objections on appeal of

Case 3:06-cv-01527-WQH-JMA Document 10 Filed 09/21/07 Page 5 of 6
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

6 06cv1527-WQH (JMA)

the Court’s order. See Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th

Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 21, 2007

Jan M. Adler

U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-01527-WQH-JMA Document 10 Filed 09/21/07 Page 6 of 6