Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01752/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01752-1/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- 06cv1752

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARCOS ANTONIO ORTIZ, Civil No. 06cv1752-L (CAB)

Petitioner,

ORDER STRIKING FIRST AMENDED

PETITION [DOC. NO. 16] FROM

DOCKET; DEEMING MOTION TO

HOLD PROCEEDINGS IN ABEYANCE

[Doc. No. 18] AS A MOTION TO FILE

THE FIRST AMENDED PETITION

AND AS A MOTION FOR STAY AND

ABEYANCE; AND SETTING

BRIEFING SCHEDULE

v.

JAMES E. TILTON, Secretary, et al., 

Respondents.

On August 25, 2006, Petitioner Marcos Antonio Ortiz (“Petitioner”) filed his original Petition

for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. [Doc. No. 1.] In the original Petition,

Petitioner challenges his San Diego County Superior Court conviction in case number SCN 148098

for one count of assault, two counts of assault with a deadly weapon and two counts of felony

vandalism. [Lodgment No. 1 at 171-175.] In the original Petition, Petitioner contends his federal

constitutional rights were violated because: (1) the evidence was legally insufficient to prove codefendant had the intent and the present ability to apply the physical force to Cortes and Laura

Garcia, a necessary element of assault (and therefore Petitioner’s convictions as an aider and abettor

must be reversed); and (2) Petitioner’s Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to confrontation

Case 3:06-cv-01752-L-CAB Document 19 Filed 06/23/08 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

27

28

1

 The original federal Petition attaches and incorporates by reference Petitioner’s Petition for

Review with the California Supreme Court (state petition). [See Doc. No. 1 at 14 - 40.] The copy of the

state petition attached to the original federal Petition only includes odd-numbered pages (presumably

a copying error when the original federal Petition was prepared). An entire copy of the state petition,

however, has been lodged with the Court as Lodgment No. 7. Therefore, this Court assumes that the

arguments set forth in the original federal petition are identical to those presented in the state petition,

contained in its entirety in Lodgement No. 7. 

-2- 06cv1752

were violated by the admission of testimonial statements by witnesses not subject to crossexamination by Petitioner. [See Doc. No. 1 at 20 - 39; Lodgment No. 7 at 5 - 42.]1

Respondent filed his Answer [Doc. No. 7] and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in

Support of Answer to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [Doc. No. 7-2] on December 22, 2006. 

Petitioner did not filed a Traverse.

On May 5, 2008, this Court issued a Report and Recommendation to United States District

Judge M. James Lorenz under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule HC.2 of the United States

District Court for the Southern District of California. [Doc. No. 14.] In the report and

recommendation, this Court recommended that District Judge Lorenz issue an Order: (1) approving

and adopting the Report and Recommendation, and (2) directing that Judgment be entered denying

the Petition in its entirety.

On June 4, 2008, Petitioner filed his Objections to the Report and Recommendation. [Doc.

No. 15.] On the same date, Petitioner also filed (erroneously and without required court approval) a

First Amended Petition. [Doc. No. 16.] The First Amended Petition purports to set forth the same

two exhausted claims set forth in the original petition, as well as one additional unexhausted claim

having to do with whether a prior juvenile conviction could be relied upon to enhance his sentence.

[Doc. No. 16 at 8.]

On June 12, 2008, this Court issued a discrepancy order [Doc. No. 17] accepting for filing

Petitioner’s Motion to Hold Proceedings in Abeyance Pending Exhaustion of State Remedies. [Doc.

No. 18.] 

/ / / / /

/ / / / /

/ / / / /

Case 3:06-cv-01752-L-CAB Document 19 Filed 06/23/08 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

27

28

-3- 06cv1752

After reviewing the most recent filings by Petitioner, AND GOOD CAUSE APPEARING

THEREFOR, this Court HEREBY ORDERS:

1. The First Amended Petition [Doc. No. 16], filed erroneously and without required court

approval, is hereby STRICKEN. The Clerk of the Court is HEREBY DIRECTED to strike the

First Amended Petition [Doc. No. 16] from the docket in this case. Further, the Clerk of the Court is

HEREBY DIRECTED to attach the First Amended Petition as an exhibit to the Motion to Hold

Proceedings in Abeyance. [Doc. No. 18.]

2. The Motion to Hold Proceedings in Abeyance Pending Exhaustion of State Remedies

[Doc. No. 18] is HEREBY DEEMED to be a Motion for Leave to File the First Amended Petition

AND a Motion to Hold Proceedings in Abeyance Pending Exhaustion of State Remedies. 

Respondent shall have up to and including July 23, 2008, within which to file an opposition to the

Motion for Leave to File the First Amended Petition and the Motion to Hold Proceedings in

Abeyance Pending Exhaustion of State Remedies. Petitioner shall have up to and including August

13, 2008, within which to file a reply to the opposition to the Motion for Leave to File a First

Amended Petition and the Motion to Hold Proceedings in Abeyance Pending Exhaustion of State

Remedies. At that time, the Motion for Leave to File the First Amended Petition and the Motion to

Hold Proceedings in Abeyance Pending Exhaustion of State Remedies will be deemed fully briefed

and will be taken under submission. Unless otherwise ordered by this Court, no oral argument will

be required.

3. The Report and Recommendation issued by this Court on May 5, 2008 [Doc. No. 14] is

HEREBY STAYED pending resolution of the Motion for Leave to File the First Amended Petition

and the Motion to Hold Proceedings in Abeyance Pending Exhaustion of State Remedies.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 23, 2008

CATHY ANN BENCIVENGO

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-01752-L-CAB Document 19 Filed 06/23/08 Page 3 of 3