Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00935/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00935-8/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

I.

BACKGROUND

Petitioner challenges his 2010 conviction sustained in the Kings County Superior Court. 

Petitioner was sentenced to a term of 194 years to life for that conviction, and he was also 

sentenced to three years and eight months in a prior case, case no. 09CM7180. (LD 4 at 3). 

Petitioner raises four claims in the instant federal petition: 1) Ineffective assistance of trial 

counsel for failing to bring multiple pre-trial motions and failing to conduct an adequate crossexamination of an officer and other witnesses; 2) Ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to 

object and prosecutorial misconduct for presenting certain evidence, trial court abused its 

discretion by entering false documents into evidence, and the prosecutor committed misconduct 

by entering false documents into evidence; 3) Ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to raise 

racial profiling by law enforcement in connection with the active participation in a street gang 

ANDREW MANCILLA,

Petitioner,

v.

W.L. MUNIZ, 

Respondent.

Case No. 1:14-cv-00935-AWI-GSA (HC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO 

GRANT PETITIONER’S MOTION TO 

WITHDRAW CLAIMS 1, 2, AND 3 (ECF 

No. 28), DENY MOTION TO DISMISS AS 

MOOT (ECF No. 21), AND DISCHARGE 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE (ECF No. 27) 

Case 1:14-cv-00935-DAD-EPG Document 29 Filed 05/18/15 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

charge and felony vandalism charges; and 4) All issues brought in his state appellate brief. (Pet. 

at 6-9).

Petitioner appealed his conviction to the California Court of Appeal Fifth Appellate 

District. (LD 1). On January 9, 2013, the Fifth Appellate District affirmed the judgment, but 

modified the sentence for count 2 of case no. 09CM7180. (LD 4 at 3, 23-25).

On February 19, 2013, Petitioner filed a petition for review in the California Supreme 

Court which raised five claims: 1) The number of vandalism violations under Section 594(a) is 

subject to People v Bailey, 55 Cal.2d 514 (1961) (the Bailey doctrine), and the jury should have 

been instructed on that rule to determine the correct number of violations; 2) California juries 

should be instructed on the Bailey doctrine in section 594 cases; 3) Trial counsel was ineffective 

for failing to assert that Petitioner should have been sentenced as a two strike defendant instead 

of a three strike defendant; 4) No California statute establishes conspiracy as a separate and 

independent theory of derivative criminal liability; and 5) There was insufficient evidence to 

support the jury’s finding that Petitioner had inflicted great bodily injury on two of the victims. 

(LD 5). On April 17, 2013, the California Supreme Court denied the petition for review without 

prejudice to any relief to which Petitioner might be entitled after the California Supreme Court 

decided People v. Vargas. (LD 6). Petitioner has not filed any state habeas petitions.

On June 8, 2014, Petitioner filed the instant federal petition for writ of habeas corpus in 

the Sacramento Division of the Eastern District of California. On June 18, 2014, the petition was

transferred to this Court. On September 5, 2014, Petitioner filed a motion to amend the petition 

to name a proper respondent. On August 8, 2014, the Court ordered Petitioner to show cause 

why the petition should not be dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies. On October 14, 

2014, Petitioner filed a response to the Court’s order to show cause. On October 15, 2014, the 

Court ordered Respondent to file a response to the petition. 

On December 3, 2014, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition because the 

petition is a mixed petition. (ECF No. 21). On February 13, 2015, the undersigned issued a 

Findings and Recommendation that recommended that Respondent’s motion to dismiss be 

granted and the petition for writ of habeas corpus be dismissed without prejudice, but gave 

Case 1:14-cv-00935-DAD-EPG Document 29 Filed 05/18/15 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

Petitioner the option of withdrawing the unexhausted claims. (ECF No. 23). On February 25, 

2015, Petitioner submitted a motion to withdraw the unexhausted claims, but it was unsigned by 

Petitioner. (ECF No. 24). On March 3, 2015, the undersigned issued an order directing 

Petitioner to file a statement that he submitted the motion to withdraw the unexhausted claims 

and sign it under penalty of perjury. (ECF No. 25). On March 17, 2015, Petitioner filed a 

statement that was signed under penalty of perjury that he had filed the motion to withdraw the 

unexhausted claims. (ECF No. 26). On April 6, 2015, the Court issued an order vacating the 

February 13, 2015, Findings and Recommendation, denying Petitioner’s motion to withdraw 

claim 4, and ordering Petitioner to show cause why the petition should not be dismissed for 

being a mixed petition. (ECF No. 27). On April 17, 2015, Petitioner filed a motion to withdraw 

claims 1, 2, and 3. (ECF No. 28). Respondent did not file a response. 

II.

DISCUSSION

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases requires the Court to make a

preliminary review of each petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Court must dismiss a petition

"[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the petition...that the petition is not entitled to relief." 

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing 2254 Cases. The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 8 indicate 

that the Court may dismiss a petition for writ of habeas corpus, either on its own motion under 

Rule 4, pursuant to the respondent's motion to dismiss, or after an answer to the petition has been 

filed.

A petitioner who is in state custody and wishes to collaterally challenge his conviction by 

a petition for writ of habeas corpus must exhaust state judicial remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). 

The exhaustion doctrine is based on comity to the state court and gives the state court the initial 

opportunity to correct the state's alleged constitutional deprivations. Coleman v. Thompson, 501 

U.S. 722, 731 (1991); Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 518 (1982). 

The Court must dismiss a mixed petition without prejudice to give a petitioner an 

opportunity to exhaust the claims if he can do so. See Rose, 455 U.S. at 521-22. However, if a 

petition contains unexhausted claims, a petitioner may, at his option, withdraw the unexhausted 

Case 1:14-cv-00935-DAD-EPG Document 29 Filed 05/18/15 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

4

claims and go forward with the exhausted claims. Anthony v. Cambra, 236 F.3d 568, 574 (9th 

Cir. 2000) (“[D]istrict courts must provide habeas litigants with the opportunity to amend their 

mixed petitions by striking unexhausted claims as an alternative to suffering dismissal.”). 

In the Findings and Recommendation issued on February 13, 2015, the undersigned 

found that the petition is a mixed petition because it contains unexhausted and exhausted claims, 

and that the fourth claim is the only claim that is exhausted. (ECF No. 23 at 5). On April 6, 

2015, the Court vacated the February 13, 2015, Findings and Recommendation, and in the 

interests of justice, gave Petitioner another opportunity to withdraw the unexhausted claims, 

claims 1 through 3, and proceed on the exhausted claim, claim 4. (ECF No. 27). The Court 

ordered Petitioner to show cause why the petition should not be dismissed for failure to exhaust 

state court remedies. (ECF No. 27).

On April 17, 2015, Petitioner submitted a motion to withdraw claims 1 through 3 from 

the petition, and proceed on claim 4. (ECF No. 28). As Petitioner has requested to withdraw all 

of his unexhausted claims and proceed on the exhausted claim, unexhausted claims 1 through 3 

should be deleted from the petition. See Cambra, 236 F.3d at 574. Respondent’s motion to 

dismiss the mixed federal petition is moot upon withdrawal of the unexhausted claims. 

III.

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1) Petitioner’s motion to withdraw claims 1, 2, and 3 be GRANTED; 

2) Claims 1, 2, and 3 be DELTED from the petition; 

3) The Court’s April 6, 2015, order to show cause be DISCHARGED; and

4) Respondent’s motion to dismiss be DENIED AS MOOT.

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned United States District 

Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the 

Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. 

Within thirty (30) days after the date of service of this Findings and Recommendation, any party 

may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document 

Case 1:14-cv-00935-DAD-EPG Document 29 Filed 05/18/15 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

should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” Replies 

to the Objections shall be served and filed within fourteen (14) days after service of the 

Objections. 

The Finding and Recommendation will then be submitted to the District Court for review 

of the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(c). The parties are advised 

that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the Order of 

the District Court. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. 

Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 16, 2015 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00935-DAD-EPG Document 29 Filed 05/18/15 Page 5 of 5