Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00173/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00173-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDDIE LOPEZ MONTANEZ,

Petitioner,

Civil No. 15cv0173-BTM (BLM)

ORDER:

(1) ADOPTING AS MODIFIED

THE FINDINGS AND

CONCLUSIONS OF UNITED

STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE;

(2) DENYING PETITION FOR A

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS; and

(3) GRANTING PETITIONER’S

MOTION FOR A COA AND

ISSUING A COA LIMITED TO

CLAIM 1 OF THE PETITION

vs.

SCOTT KERNAN, Secretary,

Respondent.1

Eddie Lopez Montanez (hereinafter “Petitioner”), is a California prisoner

proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus

filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his conviction for first degree murder,

for which he was sentenced to 26 years-to-life in state prison. (ECF No. 1.) He alleges

that his federal Constitutional rights were violated because the jury was not instructed

The Clerk of Court is directed to amend the docket to reflect that Scott Kernan, the Secretary of the 1

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, has been substituted as Respondent in place of his

predecessor and former Respondent Jeffrey Beard. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d) (requiring automatic substitution

as a party the successor of a public office).

-1- 15cv0173

Case 3:15-cv-00173-BTM-BLM Document 36 Filed 07/15/16 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

that the prosecution bore the burden of proving he did not act under duress (Claim 1),

the jury was erroneously instructed on the theory of aiding and abetting, and returned

inconsistent verdicts(Claim2), he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel (Claim

3) and appellate counsel (Claim 4), and by the cumulative effect of the errors (Claim 5). 

(Pet. at 6-10, 30-59. ) Respondent has filed an Answer contending that Claim 1 is not 2

cognizable on federal habeas, Claim 2 is procedurally defaulted, the adjudication of

Claims 3 and 4 by the state court is objectively reasonable, and Claim 5 is unexhausted

but without merit. (ECF No. 7.) Petitioner has filed a Traverse arguing, inter alia, that

he can demonstrate cause and prejudice for any default of Claim 2. (ECF No. 19.)

United States Magistrate Judge Barbara L. Major has filed a Report and

Recommendation (“R&R”) which recommends the Petition be denied. (ECF No. 24.) 

The Magistrate Judge found that: (1) Claim 1 is cognizable on federal habeas, the state

court rejection of the claim is neither contrary to, nor involves an unreasonable

application of, clearly established federal law, and the error is harmless; (2) Respondent

failed to carry the burden of alleging Claim 2 is procedurally defaulted, but the claim

fails under de novo review; (3) the state court rejection of Claims 3 and 4 is neither

contrary to, nor involves an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law;

and (4) even if Claim 5 was not properly presented to the state court, it is without merit. 

(R&R at 10-40.) Petitioner has filed Objections to the R&R, and as well as a Motion for

a Certificate of Appealability. (ECF Nos. 32-33.) 

TheCourt has reviewed the R&R and the Objectionsthereto pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1), which provides that: “A judge of the court shall make a de novo

determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or

recommendations to which objection is made. A judge of the court may accept, reject,

or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate

judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

When citing to documents filed with the Court’s Electronic Case Filing (“ECF”) system, the 2

Court will refer to the pages assigned by that system.

-2- 15cv0173

Case 3:15-cv-00173-BTM-BLM Document 36 Filed 07/15/16 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

The Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s findings and conclusions in all respects

as to all claims with the exception of the procedural default aspect of Claim 2. That

claim was presented to the state court on collateral review in the first instance, rather

than on direct appeal, and the state court denied the claim with a citation to In re Dixon,

41 Cal.2d 756, 759 (1953), which provides that claims which could have been raised on

direct appeal but are not, cannot be later raised on collateral review. (R&R at 22.) The

R&R correctly noted that Respondent has the initial burden of pleading as an affirmative

defense that Petitioner’s failure to satisfy a state procedural rule forecloses federal

review. Bennett v. Mueller, 322 F.3d 573, 586 (9th Cir. 2003). The R&R found that

Respondent had not carried that burden, and the claim was therefore not procedurally

defaulted, but that it fails under a de novo review. (R&R at 24-32.) The Court adopts

as modified those findings and conclusions as follows.

The Court findsthat Respondent has satisfied the Bennett burden by stating in the

Answer: “Ground two, alleging that the trial court erred in its instruction on aiding and

abetting and in its acceptance of inconsistent verdicts, is procedurally barred. The state

court denied the claim because it could have been, but was not, raised on direct appeal.” 

(Ans. at 2.) After the R&R was issued and the objections period closed, the United

States Supreme Court held that California’s Dixon rule is firmly established and

regularly followed. Johnson v. Lee, 578 U.S. ___, 2016 WL 3041051 at *2-4 (May 31,

2016). Accordingly, Claim 2 is procedurally defaulted.

Petitioner has argued throughout these proceedingsthat, if necessary, he can show

cause and prejudice to excuse the default. (Traverse at 7-11; Objections at 20.) Because

the Court agrees with and adopts the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge

that Claim 2 fails under a de novo review (R&R at 25-32), judicial economy counsels in

favor of declining to address whether Petitioner can demonstrate cause and prejudice to

excuse the default. See Franklin v. Johnson, 290 F.3d 1223, 1232 (9th Cir. 2002)

(“Procedural bar issues are not infrequently more complex than the merits issues

presented by the appeal, so it may well make sense in some instances to proceed to the

-3- 15cv0173

Case 3:15-cv-00173-BTM-BLM Document 36 Filed 07/15/16 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

merits if the result will be the same.”), citing Lambrix v. Singletary, 520 U.S. 518, 525

(1997) (“We do not mean to suggest that the procedural-bar issue must invariably be

resolved first; only that it ordinarily should be.”) Accordingly, with that modification,

the Court ADOPTS the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge asto all claims

in the Petition.

Finally, Petitioner has filed a Motion for a Certificate of Appealability. (ECF No.

33.) Mindful ofthe “relatively low” threshold for granting a Certificate of Appealability,

Jennings v. Woodford, 290 F.3d 1006, 1010 (9th Cir. 2002), that “the petitioner need not

show that he should prevail on the merits,” Lambright v. Stewart, 220 F.3d 1022, 1025

(9th Cir. 2000), but may be entitled to a certificate when the “questions are adequate to

deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 n.

4 (1983) (citation omitted), superseded on other grounds by 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), the

Court finds a Certificate of Appealability is appropriate for Claim 1 only.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons set forth above, the Court ADOPTS AS MODIFIED the findings

and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge [ECF No. 24], DENIES the Petition for a writ

of habeas corpus [ECF No. 1], GRANTS Petitioner’s Motion for a COA [ECF No. 33],

and ISSUES a Certificate of Appealability limited to Claim 1 of the Petition.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 15, 2016 _________________________________________

 

 BARRY TED MOSKOWITZ

 United States District Judge

-4- 15cv0173

Case 3:15-cv-00173-BTM-BLM Document 36 Filed 07/15/16 Page 4 of 4