Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01487/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01487-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE A. NARANJO,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 11cv1487 WQH (PCL)

ORDER

vs.

JEFFREY BEARD, Secretary of the

California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation,

Respondent.

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the “Application for Relief from Order to File Joint

Status Report and Update Regarding Potential for Further State-Court Proceedings”

(“Application for Relief”) filed by Respondent Jeffrey Beard. 

BACKGROUND

On April 10, 2013, the Court conducted a de novo review of the record and found that

Petitioner Jose A. Naranjo had not been afforded the effective assistance of appellate counsel

guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. (ECF No. 27). The Court granted Petitioner a

conditional writ of habeas corpus and indicated that the writ would be granted unless, within

sixty days of the date of that Order, the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego

vacated its June 3, 2009 order and judgment and then reinstated that order and judgment,

thereby allowing Petitioner to initiate the appeals process by seeking a certificate of probable

cause. Id. at 16.

- 1 - 11cv1487 WQH (PCL)

Case 3:11-cv-01487-WQH-PCL Document 29 Filed 05/01/13 Page 1 of 4
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

On April 30, 2013, Respondent filed the Application for Relief.1 (ECF No. 28). 

Respondent “seeks relief from the order requiring a ‘joint status report.’” Id. at 2. Respondent

further requests that the Court issue a final Order, although “the State does not now

contemplate the need for a stay pending any appeal.” Id. at 2, 4.

DISCUSSION

“[The United States Supreme Court] has repeatedly stated that federal courts may delay

the release of a successful habeas petitioner in order to provide the State an opportunity to

correct the constitutional violation found by the court.” Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770,

775 (1987) (collecting cases). “Courts employ a conditional order of release in appropriate

circumstances, which orders the State to release the petitioner unless the State takes some

remedial action....” Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 741-42 (9th Cir. 2008). “Such

conditional orders are essentially accommodations accorded to the state, in that conditional

writs enable habeas courts to give States time to replace an invalid judgment with a valid one.” 

Id. at 742; see also Gentry v. Deuth, 456 F.3d 687, 692 (6th Cir. 2006) (“[T]he sole distinction

between a conditional and an absolute grant of the writ of habeas corpus is that the former lies

latent unless and until the state fails to perform the established condition, at which time the

writ springs to life.”).

“To be final, a habeas decision must either deny the petition or order the prisoner

released at a specified time.” Prellwitz v. Sisto, 657 F.3d 1035, 1037 (9th Cir. 2011) (internal

quotation omitted) (citing Alexander v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 514 F.3d 1083, 1087 (10th Cir.

2008) (holding that a conditional order is a final decision only if it orders the prisoner released

by a specified time upon failure of the stated conditions); Allen v. Hadden, 738 F.2d 1102,

1106 (10th Cir. 1984) (same)). “Thus, conditional orders may qualify as final decisions, but

only if they order the petitioner’s release.” Prellwitz, 657 F.3d at 1037 (citing Browder v. Dir.,

1

The attached Certificate of Service (ECF No. 28-1) indicates that Respondent mailed

a copy of the Application for Relief to a P.O. Box at Ironwood State Prison. As the docket

reflects, Petitioner is no longer housed at Ironwood State Prison; rather, Petitioner is presently

housed at Chuckawalla State Prison. The Court hereby ORDERS the Clerk of the Court to

mail to Petitioner, at the address listed on the docket, a copy of this Order and the Application

for Relief (ECF No. 28) filed by Respondent. Respondent shall serve all future filings on

Petitioner at the address listed on the docket. 

- 2 - 11cv1487 WQH (PCL)

Case 3:11-cv-01487-WQH-PCL Document 29 Filed 05/01/13 Page 2 of 4
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

Dep't of Corr., 434 U.S. 257, 260 (1978) (holding that an order “directing that petitioner be

released from custody unless the State retried him within 60 days” was a final decision)). 

In this case, the Court granted a conditional writ of habeas corpus that is consistent with

the conditional writ that the Ninth Circuit instructed the district court in Flores-Ortega to grant

while the case was on remand from the United States Supreme Court. See Flores-Ortega v.

Roe, 39 F. Appx. 604, 606 (9th Cir. 2002) (instructing the district court “to issue a conditional

writ of habeas corpus releasing Flores from state custody, unless the state permits Flores to

initiate and prosecute a direct appeal from his conviction within a reasonable period of time

as determined by the district court”). The Court will amend the April 10, 2013 Order as

follows to indicate its finality: “The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1) is

GRANTED as to claim four. Respondent shall release Petitioner from custody on June 9, 2013

unless, prior to that date, the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego has vacated

its June 3, 2009 order and judgment and then reinstated that order and judgment, thereby

allowing Petitioner to initiate the appeal process from the reinstated judgment by seeking a

certificate of probable cause.”

CONCLUSION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Application for Relief (ECF No. 28) is

GRANTED. The Court will not require a joint status report. Respondent shall file a status

report with the Court no later than May 30, 2013. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court’s April 10, 2013 Order (ECF No. 27) is

VACATED in part, from page 16, line 5 to page 16, line 12, and amended as follows: “The

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1) is GRANTED as to claim four. Respondent

shall release Petitioner from custody on June 9, 2013 unless, prior to that date, the Superior

Court of California, County of San Diego has vacated its June 3, 2009 order and judgment and

then reinstated that order and judgment, thereby allowing Petitioner to initiate the appeal

process from the reinstated judgment by seeking a certificate of probable cause.” 

Certificate of Appealability

A certificate of appealability must be obtained by a petitioner in order to pursue an

- 3 - 11cv1487 WQH (PCL)

Case 3:11-cv-01487-WQH-PCL Document 29 Filed 05/01/13 Page 3 of 4
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

appeal from a final order in a Section 2254 habeas corpus proceeding. See 28 U.S.C. §

2253(c)(1)(A); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). Pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules Governing

Section 2254 Cases, “[t]he district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when

it enters a final order adverse to the applicant.” 

A certificate of appealability may issue “only if the applicant has made a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). It must appear that

reasonable jurists could find the district court’s assessment of the petitioner’s constitutional

claims debatable or wrong. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000). The Court

concludes that jurists of reason could find it debatable whether this Court was correct in

denying claims one, two and three of the Petition. See ECF No. 20. A certificate of

appealability is GRANTED as to claims one, two and three.

DATED: May 1, 2013

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 4 - 11cv1487 WQH (PCL)

Case 3:11-cv-01487-WQH-PCL Document 29 Filed 05/01/13 Page 4 of 4