Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01141/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01141-6/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EUGENE RAMAC No. 2:06-cv-01141-MCE-CMK-P

CASTRONUEVO,

Petitioner, 

vs. ORDER

THOMAS LONG,

Respondent.

 /

Petitioner, a prisoner proceeding with counsel, brings this petition for a writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

Judge pursuant to Eastern District of California local rules.

On October 4, 2007, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein

which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings

and recommendations were to be filed within 20 days. Timely objections to the findings and

recommendations have been filed.

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:06-cv-01141-MCE -CMK Document 30 Filed 12/14/07 Page 1 of 3
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

2

In his objections, respondent argues, for the first time, that this court lacks jurisdiction to

rule on the petition because petitioner was not in custody at the time he filed the petition. The

parties agree that petitioner had completed his state court sentence before he filed the instant

federal petition. Also, the case law is clear that immigration consequences of a state court

conviction are not sufficient to meet the “in custody” requirement for federal habeas relief. 

There are two exceptions to the “in custody” requirement: (1) there has been a complete

failure of counsel amounting to a violation of Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S 335 (1963); or (2)

no channel of review was available to the petitioner. See Resendiz v. Kovensky, 416 F.3d 952,

959 (9th Cir. 2005). The second exception is only a possible exception and would be rare. 

See id. As to the second rare exception, the Supreme Court has suggested that it exists where a

“state court . . . without justification, refuse[s] to rule on a constitutional claim that has been

presented to it.” Lackawanna County Dist. Atty v. Coss, 532 U.S. 394, 405 (2001). In

Lackawanna, the Supreme Court stated:

The general rule we have adopted here . . . reflects the notion that a

defendant properly bears the consequences of either foregoing otherwise

available review of a conviction or failing to successfully demonstrate

constitutional error. (citation omitted). It is not always the case, however,

that a defendant can be faulted for failing to obtain timely review of a

constitutional claim. For example, a state court may, without justification,

refuse to rule on a constitutional claim that has been properly presented to

it. 

Id. While some courts in the Ninth Circuit have assumed without deciding that the second

exception exists and have concluded that it did not apply to the particular case, no court in the

Ninth Circuit has actually applied the second exception as a basis for jurisdiction. See e.g.

Alford v. Maddock, 2007 WL 185494 (E.D. Cal. 2007). 

Here, petitioner was not at fault for failing to obtain direct review by the state court of his

constitutional claim. It was the conceded ineffectiveness of counsel that caused petitioner to

miss the deadline for filing a direct appeal. 

/ / /

Case 2:06-cv-01141-MCE -CMK Document 30 Filed 12/14/07 Page 2 of 3
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

3

Then, it was the unjustified action of the California Court of Appeal that ended his attempt at

direct review. Therefore, the court concludes that this case presents the rare situation in which

the second exception should apply. 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-304,

this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file,

the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper

analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed October 4, 2007, are adopted in full;

2. Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus is granted; and

3. This matter is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings to

determine and appropriate remedy. 

Dated: December 14, 2007

________________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-01141-MCE -CMK Document 30 Filed 12/14/07 Page 3 of 3