Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00470/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00470-1/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)

---

I

FILED . 17 JAN 17 PH 3:31

1

2

3

4

deputy !?¥' 5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 FRANCISCO RENE HERNANDEZ, Case No.: 3:16-cv-00470-BEN-JMA

12 Petitioner,

ORDER:

13 v.

(1) DENYING PETITIONER’S

MOTION FOR STAY OF

JUDGMENT;

14 JEFFREY BEARD, Secretary of

California Department ofCorrections, et 15 al.,

16 Respondents. (2) DENYING PETITIONER’S

MOTION FOR SECOND

EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE

OBJECTIONS TO REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION;

17

18

19

20 (3) ADOPTING REPORT AND

21 RECOMMENDATION; and

22 (4) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

23 MOTION TO DISMISS

24 [Docket Nos. 8,14,19, 24]

25

Petitioner Francisco Rene Hernandez, a state prisoner proceedingpro se and in

informapauperis, filed a petition for writ ofhabeas corpus (“Petition”) pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his San Diego Superior Court conviction and sentence in

26

27

28

l

3:16-cv-00470-BEN-JMA

Case 3:16-cv-00470-BEN-JMA Document 25 Filed 01/17/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 7
Case No. SCE286092. (Docket No. 1.) Respondent Jeffrey Beard filed a Motion to

Dismiss the Petition. (Docket No. 8.) The Motion is fully briefed.

Magistrate Judge Jan M. Adler issued a thoughtful and thorough Report and

Recommendation (“Report”) recommending this Court grant Respondent’s Motion and

dismiss the Petition. (Docket No. 14.) Specifically, the Report found Petitioner had

previously filed a petition for writ ofhabeas corpus in this Court, in which he challenged

the same conviction and sentence that he challenges in the current Petition. (Id. at 2.) As

such, the Petition should be dismissed as successive pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2).

(Id. at 3-4.) Petitioner did not timely file any objections to the Report. Petitioner has

since filed a Motion for Stay ofJudgment and a Motion for a Second Extension ofTime

to File Objections. (Docket Nos. 19, 24.)

For the reasons that follow, the Court DENIES the Motion for Stay, DENIES the

Motion for a Second Extension ofTime, and ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND BACKGROUND

On July 2,2012, Petitioner filed a petition for writ ofhabeas in this Court, wherein

he challenged his August 4, 2009 conviction and resulting sentence in San Diego County

Superior Court Case No. SCE286092 for two counts ofrobbery under California Penal

Code § 211. See Hernandez v. Beard, 3:12-cv-01682-BEN-DHB.

On October 16, 2013, this Court adopted Magistrate Judge David H. Bartick’s

Report and Recommendation to deny the petition and also denied a certificate of

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

i 18

19

20

21

22

i Petitioner’s conviction was affirmed by the California Court ofAppeal on October 27,

2011. (See Hernandez v. Beard, 3:12-cv-01682-BEN-DHB, Docket No. 28 at 4.) Petitioner

then filed a petition for review in the California Supreme Court, which issued a silent

denial on January 11, 2012. (Id.) Petitioner also filed a habeas corpus petition in San

Diego Superior Court, which was denied on January 27, 2010. (Id.) Petitioner

subsequently filed a habeas corpus petition with the California Court ofAppeal, which

was denied on November 6, 2011. (Id., Docket No. 28 at 5.) Petitioner then filed a

habeas corpus petition with the California Supreme Court, which was denied on June 13,

2012. (Id.)

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

3:16-cv-00470-BEN-JMA

Case 3:16-cv-00470-BEN-JMA Document 25 Filed 01/17/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 7
appealability. {Id. Docket Nos. 34-35.) In its Order, this Court determined: (1) the trial

court had no duty to order a competency hearing; (2) the trial court did not err in denying

Petitioner’s motion to suppress un-Mirandized statements; (3) the trial court did not fail

to instruct the jury on competence and intent; and (4) Petitioner’s trial counsel did not

render ineffective assistance of counsel. {Id., Docket No. 34.)

On February 15,2016, Petitioner constructively filed this Petition attacking the

same 2009 judgment.2 In his Petition, Petitioner argues: (1) the San Diego Superior

Court Judge failed to submit a waiver in open court to transfer Petitioner’s case to East

County Court; (2) the Prosecutor failed to obtain a waiver from Petitioner after

transferring his case to East County Court; (3) the Court failed to arraign Petitioner

within 48 hours of arrest; and (4) Detective Garcia failed to inform San Diego County

Jail ofPetitioner’s pending charges ofrobbery, resulting in a failure to rebook Petitioner

on the robbery charges. (Docket No. 1.)

On May 4, 2016, Respondent moved to dismiss the Petition on the grounds that it

was successive, and that Petitioner failed to obtain authorization to file it from the Ninth

Circuit. (Docket No. 8.) On August 3, 2016, Judge Adler issued the Report and

Recommendation, and ordered the parties to file their respective objections, if any, by

August 24, 2016. (Docket No. 14.)

On August 22,2016, Petitioner filed two motions, one to stay the case, and one for

an extension oftime to file his objections. (Docket Nos. 17,19.) On August 30, 2016,

the Court granted Petitioner’s motion for an extension oftime to file his objections,

extending his time to file to September 23, 2016. (Docket No. 20.) On September 23,

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 See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988) (“notice of appeal was filed at the time

petitioner delivered it to the prison authorities for forwarding to the court clerk”). Here,

it appears Hernandez handed his Petition to prison authorities on February 15, 2016.

(Docket No. 1 at 52.)

27

28

3

3:16-cv-00470-BEN-JMA

Case 3:16-cv-00470-BEN-JMA Document 25 Filed 01/17/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 7
Petitioner filed a motion for an additional extension oftime to file his objections.

(Docket No. 24.)

1

2

3 DISCUSSION

4 Petitioner’s Motion for Stay of Judgment

In Petitioner’s Motion for Stay ofJudgment, he requests the Court delay its

judgment until he files an application for leave to file a second or successive petition

from the Ninth Circuit. (Docket No. 19.) He indicates he understands how to properly

file a second or successive petition, which is to get permission from the Ninth Circuit.

I.

5

6

7

8

9 (Id.)

“[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court

to control the disposition ofthe causes on its docket with economy oftime and effort for

itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). In

determining whether to grant a stay, a court considers: (1) “possible damage which may

result from the granting of a stay,” (2) “the hardship or inequity which a party may suffer

in being required to go forward,” and (3) “the orderly course ofjustice measured in terms

ofthe simplifying or complicating ofissues, proof, and questions oflaw which could be

expected to result from a stay.” CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962).

Petitioner’s Motion is solely based on his recent understanding ofthe need to

obtain permission from the Ninth Circuit in order to have filed his case in the first place.

Although his Motion does does not squarely address any ofthe three factors, the Court

has evaluated each ofthe factors. First, it does not appear Petitioner will suffer any

damages ifthe action is not stayed because he essentially admits that his lawsuit was

improperly filed and he must obtain leave from the Ninth Circuit to pursue it. (Docket

No. 19.) Second, for the same reason, it does not appear Petitioner will suffer any

hardship or inequity.3 The third factor is not relevant to the Court’s inquiry because the

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27 3 In particular, there is no guarantee that Petitioner will obtain the Ninth Circuit’s

permission to file his successive petition. 28

4

3:16-cv-00470-BEN-JMA

Case 3:16-cv-00470-BEN-JMA Document 25 Filed 01/17/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 7
only issue before this Court, i.e. whether the Petition should be dismissed as successive,

appears to have been admitted by Petitioner. {Id.) In sum, all three factors weigh against

favor of a stay.

Because Petitioner has not established that any ofthe factors weight in favor of

staying the case, the Motion for Stay is DENIED.

Petitioner’s Motion for Second Extension ofTime to File Objections

Petitioner filed a motion seeking an additional extension oftime to file objections

to the Report and Recommendation on the grounds that the Salinas Valley State Prison,

where he is being housed, was under a “major lockdown” due to a prison racial riot.

(Docket. No. 24.) As a result, he was unable to use the prison’s law library to complete

his objections and file them in accordance with the Court’s extended deadline. {Id.) The

Court acknowledges Petitioner’s situation, but finds that in light ofhis apparent

admission that he needs to obtain the Ninth Circuit’s permission to proceed with his case

(docket no. 19.), an additional extension oftime to file objections is not warranted.

Therefore, Petitioner’s Motion for Second Extension ofTime is DENIED.

III. Judge Adler’s Report and Recommendation

A districtjudge “may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition” of a

magistrate judge on a dispositive matter. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1). “[T]he districtjudge must determine de novo any part ofthe [report and

recommendation] that has been properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).

However, “[t]he statute makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate

judge’s findings and recommendations de novo ifobjection is made, but not otherwise.”

United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc); see also

Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005). “Neither the Constitution nor

the statute requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations

that the parties themselves accept as correct.” Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121.

Petitioner did not timely file any objections to Judge Adler’s Report, despite being

granted an extension oftime to file objections. (Docket Nos. 17, 20.) The Court need

1

2

3

4

5

6 II.

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

3:16-cv-00470-BEN-JMA

Case 3:16-cv-00470-BEN-JMA Document 25 Filed 01/17/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 7
not conduct a de novo review given the absence of objections. However, the Court has

conducted a de novo review and fully ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244, a court is not required to consider a writ ofhabeas corpus

when “it appears that the legality ofsuch detention has been determined by a judge or

court ofthe United States on a prior application....” 28 U.S.C. § 2244. Petitioner

contends the instant Petition is not a second or successive petition because it raises “four

new claims,” meaning claims that were not raised in his previous petition. (Docket No.

11.) However, a claim presented in a second or successive petition that was not

presented in a prior application shall be dismissed unless:

(A) the applicant shows that the claim relies on a new rule of

constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral

review by the Supreme Court, that was previously

unavailable; or

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13 (B) (i) the factual predicate for the claim could not have been

discovered previously through the exercise of due

diligence; and (ii) the facts underlying the claim, ifproven

and viewed in light ofthe evidence as a whole, would be

sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence

that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder

would have found the applicant guilty ofthe underlying

offense.

14

15

16

17

18

19

28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2). Petitioner does not allege any facts to establish his new Petition

satisfies the requirements of § 2244(b)(2). The Petition does not rely on a new rule of

constitutional law or contain any claims “that could not have been discovered previously

through the exercise of due diligence,” and does not contain facts that sufficiently

establish Petitioner’s innocence. Id. As Petitioner fails to prove the claims raised in this

second Petition could not have been raised in any prior petition, his second petition for

writ of habeas corpus should be considered successive and, therefore, dismissed. See Hill

v. Alaska, 297 F.3d 895, 898 (9th Cir. 2002).

Therefore, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6

3:16-CV-00470-BEN-JMA

Case 3:16-cv-00470-BEN-JMA Document 25 Filed 01/17/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 7
1 CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, Petitioner’s Motions to Stay and for a Second

Extension ofTime are DENIED. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED and

Petitioner’s petition is DISMISSED.

The Court DENIES a certificate of appealability because the issues are not

debatable among jurists ofreason and there are no questions adequate to deserve

encouragement. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003). The Clerk ofCourt

shall enterjudgment DENYING the Petition.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11 DATED:

12 United States District Judge

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7

3:16-cv-00470-BEN-JMA

Case 3:16-cv-00470-BEN-JMA Document 25 Filed 01/17/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 7