Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02287/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02287-0/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

16-cv-02287-BAS-JLB

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Demetrius Sissac,

Petitioner,

v.

W.L. Montgomery,

Respondents.

Case No.: 16-cv-02287-BAS-JLB

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

STAY

[ECF No. 14]

I. INTRODUCTION

Petitioner Demetrius Sissac, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254

(“Petition”), challenging his San Diego County Superior Court conviction of second degree 

murder with a firearm in case number SCE315928. (ECF No. 1 at 1; ECF No. 8-14 at 1-

2.)

1

 Respondent filed its Answer and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support 

of the Answer, arguing in part that the Petition should be dismissed for failure to exhaust. 

In response, Petitioner filed a motion seeking a stay and abeyance of the claims raised in 

the Petition to afford him time to exhaust his claims before the California Supreme Court

(“Motion to Stay”). (ECF No. 14.) Respondent filed an opposition to the Motion to Stay, 

 

1

 Page numbers for docketed materials cited herein refer to those imprinted by the court’s electronic case 

filing system.

Case 3:16-cv-02287-BAS-JLB Document 19 Filed 05/10/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 7
2

16-cv-02287-BAS-JLB

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

and Petitioner filed a reply thereto. (ECF Nos. 16, 18.) The Motion to Stay is presently 

before the Court.

II. BACKGROUND

A jury found Petitioner guilty of second degree murder with a firearm. (ECF No. 8-

14 at 2.) The trial court sentenced him to a total term of forty years to life. (Id.) Through 

counsel, Petitioner separately filed both an appeal (ECF No. 8-12) and a petition for writ 

of habeas corpus (ECF No. 8-15) in the California Court of Appeal. The appeal consisted 

of evidentiary-error claims. The habeas petition alleged the trial counsel was ineffective

for failing to object to the evidentiary-error claims made on appeal. (Id.) On March 3, 

2015, the Court of Appeal denied Petitioner’s motion to consolidate the two cases and 

issued separate disposition orders, affirming the judgment and denying relief. (ECF Nos. 

8-14, 8-16, and 18 at 3.)

The Court of Appeal’s habeas order on Petitioner’s state habeas petition was a one 

page disposition order that incorporated its thirty-one page disposition order denying 

Petitioner’s appeal. The text of the habeas order was as follows:

Demetrius Sissac’s petition for writ of habeas corpus has 

been read and considered by Justices Nares, Haller, and 

Mclntyre.[]

Sissac’s petition relates to the claims of prejudicial 

evidentiary error and ineffective assistance of counsel raised in 

his direct appeal. For reasons explained in our opinion in the 

direct appeal, we reject Sissac’s claims.

The petition is denied, as is appellant’s motion to 

consolidate the petition with the appeal.

(ECF No. 18 at 3 (footnote omitted); see also ECF No. 8-16.) The habeas order also 

included a single footnote that stated, “By order dated June 16, 2014, this court directed 

that the petition be considered at the same time as the appeal in this matter (People v. Sissac

(Mar. 3, 2015, D064910) [nonpub. opn.]). We take judicial notice of that appeal.” (ECF 

No. 18 at 3.)

Case 3:16-cv-02287-BAS-JLB Document 19 Filed 05/10/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 7
3

16-cv-02287-BAS-JLB

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

Then, still represented by counsel, Petitioner filed a petition for review before the 

California Supreme Court with respect to the appeal only. (ECF No. 8-17.) Petitioner took 

no further state-court action on his ineffective-assistance claims – the same claims for 

which he seeks federal habeas relief in this case.

III. ANALYSIS

The Petition is comprised of the following five claims for habeas relief: (1) the 

cumulative impact of errors and omissions by trial counsel deprived Petitioner of his right 

to a fair trial; (2) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to renew at trial his pretrial 

objections to the admission of text messages; (3) trial counsel was ineffective in failing to 

specifically object to evidence of deleted text messages and telephone calls; (4) trial 

counsel was ineffective for conceding that Petitioner’s statements in a recorded telephone 

call were admissible; and (5) trial counsel was ineffective in failing to object to improper 

lay opinion testimony by witnesses. (ECF No. 1.) Petitioner argues that he recently learned 

that each of these claims are unexhausted, and thus filed the Motion to Stay so that he can 

exhaust his claims before the California Supreme Court. (ECF No. 14, 18.) 

Prisoners in state custody who wish to challenge collaterally in federal habeas 

proceedings either the fact or length of their confinement are first required to exhaust state 

judicial remedies, either on direct appeal or through collateral proceedings, by presenting 

the highest state court available with a fair opportunity to rule on the merits of each and 

every claim they seek to raise in federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), (c). The petitioner 

must give the state courts a full opportunity to resolve any constitutional issues by invoking 

one complete round of the state’s established appellate review process, which includes 

seeking discretionary review. See O’Sullivan v. Boerkel, 526 U.S. 838, 841-47 (1999); 

Farmer v. Baldwin, 497 F.3d 1050, 1053 (9th Cir. 2007). Thus, in California, habeas 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:16-cv-02287-BAS-JLB Document 19 Filed 05/10/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 7
4

16-cv-02287-BAS-JLB

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

petitioners are required to exhaust their claims in a petition for review to the California 

Supreme Court.2 Gatlin v. Madding, 189 F.3d 882, 888 (9th Cir. 1999).

Recently, in Mena v. Long, 813 F.3d 907, 911 (9th Cir. 2016), the Ninth Circuit held 

that “a district court has the discretion to stay and hold in abeyance fully unexhausted

petitions under the circumstances set forth in Rhines [v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005)].” A 

stay under Rhines, “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,” the claims are 

not meritless, and there are no intentionally dilatory litigation tactics by the petitioner. 

Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 277-78 (2005). Any such stay must be limited in time to 

avoid indefinite delay. Id.

On January 24, 2017, Respondent filed its opposition to Petitioner’s Motion to Stay. 

(ECF No. 16.) Respondent argues that a stay is not appropriate here because Petitioner 

failed to show good cause for his failure to exhaust and Petitioner’s claims are meritless. 

(Id.) On reply, however, Petitioner provides a declaration explaining the circumstances 

behind his belief that he had exhausted both his appellate and habeas claims before the 

California Supreme Court. (ECF No. 18.) Petitioner states:

Respondent has filed his Opposition to my motion for a 

Stay and Abeyance claiming ‘good cause’ was not shown. It is 

true a petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus was filed separately 

[sic] from an Appeal in the California Court of Appeal on my 

behalf. While these two motion[s] were filed separately [sic], 

there was also a motion put in to consolidate the two cases and 

have them decided together. This motion for consolidation of 

the Appeal and Habeas Petition was denied. However, I never 

received the Court Order of the denial, therefore it was my 

assumption this whole time that my petition for review in the 

California Supreme Court applied to both my direct appeal, and 

my habeas petition.

 

2 Courts can excuse this exhaustion requirement if “(i) there is an absence of available State corrective 

process; or (ii) circumstances exist that render such process ineffective to protect the rights of the 

applicant.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(B). Petitioner does not argue that either of these exceptions should 

apply here.

Case 3:16-cv-02287-BAS-JLB Document 19 Filed 05/10/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 7
5

16-cv-02287-BAS-JLB

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

I filed the habeas petition in the United States District 

Court under the belief that my petition was fully exhausted and 

had not realized my error until after the respondent brought it up 

in his answer to my Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. I spoke 

with Counsel Raymond M. Diguiseppe state bar No: 228457 who 

was assigned to my appeal. He informed me that he had in fact 

mailed the denial for consolidation in a timely matter to me, but 

that it might have been lost in the mail. This document has 

recently been mailed to me and there is no more confusion on 

this matter. (see attached document) I want to inform the court 

that in no way am I trying to use stall tactics and that I am ready 

for my habeas petition to be decided in the District Court. I am 

asking the Court to grant me a Stay and Abeyance so that I can 

fully exhaust these issues and have them decided. I believe my 

habeas petition does hold merit on account of it addresses my 

Sixth Amendment Right to Assistance of Counsel.

(ECF No. 18 at 1-2.) Petitioner’s claimed good faith belief that he thought he had 

exhausted his claims with the California Supreme Court is consistent with Petitioner 

checking the box, as to each ground, indicating he had raised the ground in the California 

Supreme Court in case number S225613.3 His claim of having a good faith belief that he 

had exhausted is further supported by the fact that Petitioner, in order to demonstrate 

exhaustion, attached to his Petition the June 10, 2015 California Supreme Court order 

denying his appeal in case S225613. (ECF No. 1.)

The Court finds that Petitioner has shown good cause for a stay of his Petition. 

Although the Court at this stage makes no determination on the merits of this case, 

Petitioner raises colorable federal claims and the Court cannot say at this time that 

Petitioner clearly has no hope of prevailing. See Dixon v. Baker, 847 F.3d 714, 722 (9th 

Cir. 2017) (“principles of comity and federalism demand that the federal court refrain from 

ruling on the merits of the [unexhausted] claim unless ‘it is perfectly clear that the petitioner 

 

3 Concededly, the Petition is internally inconsistent, in that, earlier in the Petition, in response to the 

question of whether Petitioner had previously filed any petitions (“e.g., a Petition for Writ of Habeas 

Corpus”) in the California Supreme Court, Petitioner checked, “No.”

Case 3:16-cv-02287-BAS-JLB Document 19 Filed 05/10/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 7
6

16-cv-02287-BAS-JLB

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

has no hope of prevailing’”). In addition, it appears that no prejudice would inure to the 

parties by granting the requested stay. Also, there is no indication that Petitioner has 

engaged in intentionally dilatory litigation tactics.

Therefore, the Court will grant Petitioner’s motion for a stay of the proceedings and 

will hold the Petition in abeyance pending exhaustion of Petitioner’s state remedies.

However, the Court will not hold the Petition in abeyance indefinitely. No later than 

June 9, 2017, Petitioner must inform the Court of the status of the habeas proceedings 

before the California Supreme Court, including the date(s) his case(s) were filed, the case 

number(s), and any outcome(s). Further, Petitioner must proceed diligently to pursue his 

state court remedies, and Petitioner must file a new status report regarding the status of his 

state court habeas corpus proceedings before the California Supreme Court every sixty (60) 

days after the filing of the initial status report. Following a disposition order by the 

California Supreme Court on Petitioner’s state habeas petition, Petitioner will be allowed 

thirty (30) days within which to file a motion to vacate the stay to have his newly exhausted 

claims decided in this District Court. Failure to comply with these instructions and time 

allowances will result in this Court vacating the stay nunc pro tunc to the date of this order.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons outlined above, the Motion to Stay (ECF No. 14) is GRANTED. 

No later than June 9, 2017, Petitioner must inform the Court of the status of the state habeas 

proceedings before the California Supreme Court, including the date(s) his case(s) were 

filed, the case number(s), and any outcome(s). Further, Petitioner must file a new status 

report regarding the status of his state court habeas corpus proceedings before the 

California Supreme Court every sixty (60) days after the filing of the initial status report. 

Following a disposition order by the California Supreme Court on Petitioner’s state habeas 

petition, Petitioner will be allowed thirty (30) days within which to file a motion to vacate 

the stay to have his newly exhausted claims decided in this District Court. Petitioner is 

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:16-cv-02287-BAS-JLB Document 19 Filed 05/10/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 7
7

16-cv-02287-BAS-JLB

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

cautioned that failure to comply with these instructions and time allowances will result in 

this Court vacating the stay nunc pro tunc to the date of this order.

Dated: May 10, 2017

Case 3:16-cv-02287-BAS-JLB Document 19 Filed 05/10/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 7