Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02813/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02813-1/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

16cv2813-BTM-LL

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY L. CONTRERAS,

Petitioner,

v.

WARREN L. MONTGOMERY, 

Warden,

Respondent.

Case No.: 16cv2813-BTM-LL

ORDER:

(1) ADOPTING THE FINDINGS AND 

CONCLUSIONS OF UNITED STATES 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE;

(2) DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS 

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS 

CORPUS; and,

(3) ISSUING STAY AND ABEYANCE

Petitioner Anthony L. Contreras is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis with a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, 

challenging his San Diego County Superior Court convictions for attempted premeditated

murder and shooting at an occupied vehicle, with firearm and criminal street gang 

enhancements, for which he is serving an indeterminate sentence of life in prison plus a 

determinate sentence of 25 years to life. (ECF No. 1 at 1-2; ECF No. 19-1 at 2.) 

Respondent has filed Motion to Dismiss the Petition, contending it contains both exhausted 

and unexhausted claims. (ECF No. 18.) Petitioner has filed an Opposition contending he 

Case 3:16-cv-02813-BTM-BLM Document 25 Filed 02/25/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

16cv2813-BTM-LL

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

first became aware his petition contains unexhausted claims when he received 

Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss. He requests a stay and abeyance as an alternate to 

dismissal. (ECF No. 22.)

The United States Magistrate Judge has filed a thorough and well-reasoned Report 

and Recommendation (“R&R”) which recommends the Motion to Dismiss be denied and 

this action stayed while Petitioner returns to the state supreme court to exhaust his 

unexhausted claims. No party has filed Objections to the R&R.

The Court has reviewed the R&R and ADOPTS in full the findings and conclusions 

of the Magistrate Judge. For the reasons set forth in the R&R, the Court DENIES

Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss and ISSUES a stay and abeyance. The denial of the 

Motion to Dismiss is without prejudice to Respondent to raise any procedural defenses 

after Petitioner has completed exhaustion. Petitioner shall follow the schedule set forth 

below:

1. If Petitioner wants to try to exhaust the unexhausted claims he raised in the 

original habeas petitions he filed in the San Diego Superior Court and the California Court 

of Appeal, he must file a habeas petition with the California Supreme Court no later than 

March 31, 2020. Petitioner is forewarned that any claims raised in a new habeas petition 

filed in the California Supreme Court MUST be the same as the claims he previously 

included in the original habeas petitions he filed in the San Diego Superior Court and the 

California Court of Appeal and may not include any new legal theories.

2. When and if Petitioner receives notice that the California Supreme Court has 

accepted a new habeas petition for filing, he must promptly and without delay provide this 

Court with notice of the filing and a copy of the newly filed petition. If Petitioner fails to 

provide the Court with prompt notice and a copy of any new filing in the California 

Supreme Court, petitioner is forewarned that his entire Petition is subject to dismissal as a 

mixed petition under Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 522 (1982). Notice will be considered 

prompt if it is mailed to the Court within 15 days after Petitioner receives notice from the 

California Supreme Court that his new petition was accepted for filing.

Case 3:16-cv-02813-BTM-BLM Document 25 Filed 02/25/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

16cv2813-BTM-LL

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. If Petitioner files a new petition in the California Supreme Court, he must 

promptly mail his Amended Federal Petition that only includes exhausted claims to this 

Court within 30 days of receipt of the California Supreme Court’s ruling on his new 

petition.

4. Alternatively, Petitioner may elect to abandon the unexhausted claims in his 

Federal Petition and proceed with his currently exhausted claims by filing an amended 

petition that only includes his currently exhausted claims. If Petitioner elects to abandon 

his unexhausted claims and proceed only on his currently exhausted claims, he is required 

to file his amended petition by March 31, 2020.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 25, 2020 _____________________________________

 BARRY TED MOSKOWITZ

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:16-cv-02813-BTM-BLM Document 25 Filed 02/25/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3