Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06622/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06622-2/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JASON MARTINEZ VARGAS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

CHERYL PLILER, )

)

Respondent. )

)

___________________________________ )

CV F 03-6622 OWW WMW HC

ORDER DENYING REQUEST

TO STAY AND 

HOLD PETITION IN

ABEYANCE

[Doc. 42]

ORDER GRANTING MOTION

TO FILE OVERSIZED

TRAVERSE

[Doc. 41]

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

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pending before the court is Petitioner’s request to stay

this petition and hold it in abeyance.

On September 28, 2005, Petitioner filed a motion to stay this petition and hold it in

abeyance while he exhausts an additional claim in state court. The claim Petitioner wishes to

exhaust is the claim that his sentence was imposed in violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause

of the United States Constitution. Petitioner contends that although his offense was

committed in 2000, he was illegally sentenced under the 2001 version of Penal Code Section 

Case 1:03-cv-06622-OWW -SMS Document 51 Filed 03/16/06 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 2

186.22(b)(1), the gang enhancement statute, which provides for an additional term of ten

years. 

Respondent opposes Petitioner’s motion on the ground that the claim which

Petitioner seeks to exhaust is clearly meritless. The court agrees with Respondent and will

therefore deny Petitioner’s motion.

Article I, § 10 of the U.S. Constitution provides: "No State shall ... pass any ... ex

post facto law." The Ex Post Facto Clause prohibits the states from enacting any law "which

imposes a punishment for an act which was not punishable at the time it was committed; or

imposes additional punishment to that then prescribed." Weaver v. Graham, 450 U.S. 24, 28

(1981), quoting Cummings v. Missouri, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 277, 325-26 (1866). "[T]he focus

of the ex post facto inquiry is not on whether a legislative change produces some sort

 of 'disadvantage,' ... but on whether any such change alters the definition of criminal conduct

or increases the penalty by which a crime is punishable." California Dep't of Corrections v.

Morales, 514 U.S. 499, 506 n. 3 (1995).

As Respondent explains, California voters approved Proposition 21 on March 7,

2000. West’s Annotated California Codes, Penal Code Sections 1 -186.99, Vol.47, 2005

Cummulative Pocket Part, § 186.22, at 103. Proposition 21 became effective on March 8,

2000. Id. Proposition 21 enacted the ten-year gang enhancement. West’s Annotated

California Codes, Penal Code Sections 1-186.99, Vol. 47, 2005 Cumulative Pocket Part, §

186.22, at 101, 103. 

Petitioner was committed his offense in August 2000, after the ten-year gang

enhancement was enacted. Therefore, the court finds that his claim that the imposition of the

enhancement constituted a violation of the Ex Post Facto law is meritless. A federal court

may deny an unexhausted claim on the merits where it is clear that the petitioner does not

raise even a colorable federal claim. Cassett v. Stewart, 406 F.3d 614, 624 (9th Cir. 2005). 

The court finds, therefore, that there is no basis for staying this case to allow Petitioner to

Case 1:03-cv-06622-OWW -SMS Document 51 Filed 03/16/06 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

exhaust his Ex Post Facto claim. Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion to stay this case and hold

it in abeyance is HEREBY DENIED.

Petitioner’s request for leave to file an oversized traverse is HEREBY GRANTED.

This case is now fully briefed. Upon review, the court will issue an order resolving the

case.IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 16, 2006 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06622-OWW -SMS Document 51 Filed 03/16/06 Page 3 of 3