Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-02225/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-02225-1/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

1 05cv2225

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES EARL FELDER, Civil

No.

05-CV-2225 L (CAB)

Petitioner,

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION RE

PETITIONER’S MOTION TO HOLD

PROCEEDINGS ON PETITION IN

ABEYANCE

[Doc. ## 24, 27]

v.

RODERICK Q. HICKMAN, Secretary of the

California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation,

Respondent.

I. INTRODUCTION

This is a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On August 3,

2006 Respondent Roderick Q. Hickman (“Respondent” or “Hickman”) filed his Answer to the First

Amended Petition (“FAP”). In the Answer to the FAP, Respondent argued that Petitioner failed to

exhaust available state remedies as to his second claim because Petitioner failed to present that claim to

the California Supreme Court. Petitioner filed a Motion to Hold Proceedings on Petition in Abeyance. 

[Doc. # 24]. The Court issued an Order setting forth the requirements for demonstrating that the stay

and abeyance procedure is appropriate. [Doc # 24]. Petitioner filed an amended motion following his

receipt of the Order. [Doc. # 27]. Respondent filed an opposition. [Doc. # 29]. 

For the reasons below, the undersigned Magistrate Judge recommends that the motion be

DENIED without prejudice as unnecessary.

Case 3:05-cv-02225-L-CAB Document 30 Filed 02/01/07 Page 1 of 5
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 05cv2225

II. FACTS

In 2003, Petitioner was convicted and sentenced to a total term of twenty three years, resulting

from several terms imposed in two separate cases. (Lodgment 5, p. 2). In a case arising from offenses

committed by Felder on January 5, 2002, he pleaded guilty to cocaine possession, possession of drug

paraphernalia, and giving false information to a police officer. (Id., p. 1). Felder also admitted that he

had suffered two prior strike convictions. (Id., p. 2). In another case, arising out of offenses committed

in March 2002, Felder was found guilty of robbery and grand theft. Id. The court also found that Felder

had suffered two prior felony convictions and two prior strike convictions. Id. 

Petitioner appealed the conviction to the California Court of Appeal asserting, among other

claims, that (1) the trial court erred in giving California jury instruction CALJIC No. 2.15 concerning

possession of recently stolen property; (2) the prosecution failed to prove the prior convictions alleged in

the information; and (3) the trial court erred in denying his motion to invalidate his prior convictions. 

(Lodgment 3). The state appellate court affirmed the conviction on November 15, 2004. (Lodgment 5). 

On January 26, 2005, Felder filed a petition for review with the California Supreme Court. 

(Lodgment 6). Petitioner argued that “(1) the trial court erred in giving California jury instruction

CALJIC No. 2.15 without restricting its application to count 3; (2) trial court erred in denying a motion

to invalidate a prior conviction; and (2) the court violated Petitioner’s right to a jury trial by imposing an

upper term. (Lodgment 6). The petition was denied. (Lodgment 7).

On January 19, 2006, Felder filed the FAP. Felder alleges three grounds for relief: (1) the [trial]

court erred in giving California jury instruction CALJIC No. 2.15 and in failing to limit the instruction to

count 3; (2) the prosecution failed to prove the prior convictions alleged; and (3) the [trial] court erred in

denying the motion to invalidate the prior convictions based on the attorney’s conflict of interest. (FAP,

p. 2). 

Respondent argues in his Answer that because the second claim in the FAP was not presented to

the California Supreme Court, it is unexhausted. Petitioner seeks to stay the FAP while he returns to the

state court to exhaust the claim. 

III. DISCUSSION

The undersigned Magistrate Judge recommends that Petitioner’s motion to stay the FAP be

Case 3:05-cv-02225-L-CAB Document 30 Filed 02/01/07 Page 2 of 5
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 05cv2225

denied. A stay and abeyance of the FAP is not necessary because the second claim is exhausted. 

“The exhaustion of available state judicial remedies is ordinarily a prerequisite to obtaining

federal habeas corpus relief.” Johnson v. Zenon, 88 F.3d 828, 829 (9th Cir. 1996) (citing 28 U.S.C. §

2254(b)). “[A] district court must dismiss habeas petitions containing both unexhausted and exhausted

claims.” Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 522 (1982). District courts, however, have limited discretion to

hold in abeyance a habeas petition containing both exhausted and unexhausted claims, in order to permit

a petitioner to return to state court to exhaust additional claims while the federal proceedings are stayed. 

Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 277 (2005). Stay and abeyance is only appropriate “in limited

circumstances,” when the district court determines that (1) there was good cause for the petitioner’s

failure to exhaust his claims first in state court; and (2) the unexhausted claims are not “plainly

meritless.” Id. 

Petitioner’s second claim, however, is exhausted because no state remedies remain available with

respect to this claim. “A petitioner has satisfied the exhaustion requirement if: (1) he has ‘fairly

presented’ his federal claim to the highest state court with jurisdiction to consider it, . . . or (2) he

demonstrates that no state remedy remains available.” Johnson, 88 F.3d at 829 (citations omitted).

The exhaustion requirement applies “only to remedies still available at the time of the federal

petition.” Engle v. Isaac, 456 U.S. 107, 125-26 n. 28 (1982); see also Johnson, 88 F.3d at 829. A

petitioner’s claims are exhausted where “a return to state court for exhaustion would be futile.” Phillips

v. Woodford, 267 F.3d 966, 974 (9th Cir. 2001). “A habeas petitioner who has defaulted his federal

claims in state court meets the technical requirements for exhaustion; there are no state remedies any

longer ‘available’ to him.” Cassett v. Stewart, 406 F.3d 614, 621 n. 5 (9th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted);

see also Gray v. Netherland, 518 U.S. 152, 161 (1996) (quoting Castille v. Peoples, 489 U.S. 346, 351

(1989) (the exhaustion requirement is satisfied if “it is clear that [Petitioner’s] claims are now

procedurally barred under [state] law.”). 

No state remedies are available with respect to the second claim because the claim is

procedurally barred due to Petitioner’s failure to raise it at the trial level. Procedural default has been

applied to a petitioner’s failure to comply with the state procedures for raising a contention. See Engle,

456 U.S. at 135. Respondent himself, although arguing that the claim is unexhausted, raises procedural

Case 3:05-cv-02225-L-CAB Document 30 Filed 02/01/07 Page 3 of 5
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

1Respondent points out that Petitioner “agrees that he never presented the claim to the California

Supreme Court.” (Resp’t’s P. & A in Sup. of Opp. to Mot. to Hold Proceedings in Abeyance, 4:5-7). 

Petitioner’s “apparent admission” of nonexhaustion, however, does not prevent this Court from

reviewing the merits of his motion and determining whether the second claim is exhausted. 

4 05cv2225

default with respect to the second claim in the Answer. (See Resp’t’s P. & A. in Sup. of Opp. to Mot. to

Hold Proceedings in Abeyance, p. 2; Resp’t’s P. & A. in Sup. of Answer, 14:22, 16:3-10). Respondent

points out that Petitioner brought a claim identical to the second claim in the FAP before the California

Court of Appeal. (Lodgment 3, pp. 16-17). Petitioner contended that the prosecution failed to prove the

prior convictions alleged in the information with which he was charged. Specifically, Felder pointed out

that the information alleged two prior convictions of residential burglary sustained on November 13,

1991 in Pearl County, Mississippi, but the prosecutor instead proved that Felder was convicted of two

residential burglaries in Pike County, Mississippi, on October 23, 1991. Therefore, Petitioner claimed,

the prosecution failed to prove the convictions as alleged. Id., p. 6. 

Under California law, a defendant who fails to raise the objection to the variance between the

pleading and the proof forfeits his right to do so at the appellate court unless the variance affects his

“substantial rights.” See People v. Maury, 30 Cal.4th 342, 427 (2003); U.S. v. Romero-Alveoli, 210 F.3d

1017, 1021 (9th Cir. 2000). The Court of Appeal characterized Petitioner’s claim as “a variance

between pleading and proof, between a fact alleged and a fact proven in support of the prior conviction,

rather than a failure to prove the convictions.” (Lodgment 5, p. 8). The appellate court found that Felder

had “forfeited the issue for appeal” through his failure to object below to the variance, and that the

variance did not affect his substantial rights. (Id., pp. 8-9). Therefore the second claim is procedurally

barred by state law. 

Because Petitioner’s second claim is procedurally barred and no state remedies remain, it is also

exhausted. Cassett, 406 F.3d at 621 n. 5; Gray, 518 U.S. at 161. Therefore the FAP contains no

unexhausted claims, and the stay and abeyance procedure is not necessary.1

IV. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

Having reviewed the matter, the undersigned Magistrate Judge recommends that Petitioner’s 

Motion to Hold Proceedings on Petition in Abeyance be DENIED without prejudice as unnecessary, and

that Petitioner be ordered to file a Traverse within 30 days of the date the Order on the present Report

Case 3:05-cv-02225-L-CAB Document 30 Filed 02/01/07 Page 4 of 5
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 05cv2225

and Recommendation is filed. This Report and Recommendation of the undersigned Magistrate Judge is

submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1). 

IT IS ORDERED that no later than February 20, 2007, any party to this action 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 filed with the Court and

served on all parties within 10 days of being served with the objections. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 31, 2007

CATHY ANN BENCIVENGO

United States Magistrate Judge

cc: Hon. M. James Lorenz

all counsel, parties

Case 3:05-cv-02225-L-CAB Document 30 Filed 02/01/07 Page 5 of 5