Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05990/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05990-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HECTOR N. JAIMES, JR.,

Petitioner,

 vs.

W. DUNCAN, Warden,

Respondent. 

HECTOR N. JAIMES. JR.,

Petitioner,

 vs.

W. DUNCAN, Warden,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 04-5285 CRB (PR)

ORDER REOPENING CASE 

No. C 06-5990 CRB (PR)

ORDER DISMISSING CASE

Per order filed on June 24, 2005, the court granted petitioner's motion/

request for a stay of habeas proceedings in case number C 04-5285 CRB (PR) to

permit him to return to state court and exhaust a new claim under Blakely v.

Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004). The court instructed the clerk to

administratively close the case and advised petitioner that, within 30 days of his

exhausting his Blakely claim, he should move to reopen the case, lift the court’s

stay and amend the stayed petition to add the newly-exhausted claim.

Case 3:06-cv-05990-CRB Document 3 Filed 10/23/06 Page 1 of 2
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

On September 11, 2006, petitioner submitted a petition for a writ of

habeas corpus which was filed on September 27, 2006 as a new case and

assigned to the undersigned as case number 06-5990 CRB (PR). A close reading

of the new petition makes clear that it is an amended petition intended for filing

in C 04-5285 CRB (PR) now that petitioner has exhausted his Blakely claim.

In order to expedite petitioner's habeas proceedings, the clerk is instructed

to file a copy of the new petition into C 04-5285 CRB (PR) as petitioner's First

Amended Petition ("FAP") and to reopen C 04-5285 CRB (PR). The clerk is

further instructed to serve a copy of the FAP on respondent and to close case

number C 06-5990 CRB (PR) as improvidently opened.

Respondent previously addressed all of the claims in the FAP, save two

new ones – petitioner's recently-exhausted Blakely claim and an additional claim

of state sentencing error. Unfortunately for petitioner, his two new claims must

be dismissed. It is well-established that federal courts must defer to the state

courts' interpretation of state sentencing laws, see Bueno v. Hallahan, 988 F.2d

86, 88 (9th Cir. 1993); see also Christian v. Rhode, 41 F.3d 461, 469 (9th Cir.

1994) ("Absent a showing of fundamental unfairness, a state court's

misapplication of its own sentencing laws does not justify federal habeas relief."),

and the Ninth Circuit more recently made clear that Blakely announced a new

constitutional rule of criminal procedure that does not apply retroactively on

habeas review, see Schardt v. Payne, 414 F.3d 1-25, 1038 (9th Cir. 2005).

Petitioner may file a traverse to respondent's previous answer within 30

days of this order. 

SO ORDERED.

DATED: Oct. 20, 2006 CHARLES R. BREYER

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05990-CRB Document 3 Filed 10/23/06 Page 2 of 2