Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00302/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00302-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Rudy Castillo
Petitioner
F B Haws
Respondent

Document Text:

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RUDY CASTILLO, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

F B HAWS, Warden, ) 

 )

Respondent. )

)

 )

1:12-cv—00302-LJO-BAM-HC

ORDER RE: FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. 19)

ORDER DENYING RESPONDENT’S MOTION

TO DISMISS THE PETITION (DOC. 15)

ORDER DISMISSING AS MOOT

PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR STAY AND

ABEYANCE (DOC. 17)

ORDER REFERRING THE MATTER BACK

TO THE MAGISTRATE TO DIRECT A

RESPONSE TO THE PETITION

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

forma pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to the Magistrate

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 636(b)(1) and Local Rules 302

through 304. 

On October 23, 2012, The Magistrate Judge filed findings and

recommendations concerning two intertwined motions, namely,

Respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition as a “mixed” petition

containing some claims as to which state court remedies were not

exhausted, and Petitioner’s request for a stay and abeyance of

1

Case 1:12-cv-00302-LJO-BAM Document 26 Filed 03/06/13 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

the petition so that he might return to state court to exhaust

state court remedies as to unexhausted claims. The findings and

recommendations informed the parties that objections could be

filed within thirty days of service. On December 3, 2012,

Respondent filed timely objections to the findings and

recommendations. On December 19, 2012, Petitioner filed a timely

reply.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636

(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de novo review of the case. 

The undersigned has carefully reviewed the entire file and has

considered the objections and the reply to the objections; the

undersigned has determined there is no need to modify the

findings and recommendations based on the points raised in the

objections and reply. The Court finds that the findings and

recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis.

Respondent challenges the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that

in his petition for habeas corpus filed in the California Supreme

Court (LD 3), Petitioner had exhausted his state court remedies

as to his claim raised here that Petitioner’s trial counsel was

ineffective based on his failure to argue that Petitioner’s first

statement to police violated Miranda because Petitioner did not

waive his rights, including allegations that counsel had failed

to discuss the matter with Petitioner. The habeas petition filed

in the California Supreme Court included an attachment to the

petition in which Petitioner set forth relevant portions of the

record and thereby stated the facts pertinent to his claim

concerning trial counsel’s ineffectiveness. The facts noted

included trial counsel’s failure to discuss the matter with

2

Case 1:12-cv-00302-LJO-BAM Document 26 Filed 03/06/13 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

Petitioner. Petitioner cited Strickland v. Washington in support

of his claim. (LD 3 at 9.) 

1

Respondent argues that the material in the state court

habeas petition was not sufficient to present to the California

Supreme Court the claim concerning counsel’s failure to inquire

about the issue, relying on Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U.S. 27 (2004). 

In Baldwin v. Reese, the Court held that a state prisoner does

not fairly present a claim to a state court if that court must

read beyond a petition or a brief (or a similar document) that

does not alert it to the presence of a federal claim in order to

find material, such as a lower court opinion in the case, that

does so. In Baldwin, a state prisoner asserted in state court

In connection with this claim, Petitioner did not formally allege that

1

his trial counsel was ineffective in the portion of the state court petition

form relating to grounds. (LD 3 at 4.) However, he directed the reader to

Attachment B. (Id. at 4.) In Attachment B, Petitioner complained not only of

defense counsel’s concessions in oral argument to the jury, but also that

trial counsel failed to argue that Petitioner’s first statement to the police,

which was audio-taped, violated Miranda in that Petitioner had not waived his

rights. (Id. at 9.) Petitioner referred to a declaration that set forth

efforts to learn why counsel had failed to do so, indicated that counsel

failed to respond to the efforts, and further indicated that the transcript of

the interrogation reflected that there was no audible response from Petitioner

to a question from police regarding whether Petitioner had waived his rights.

(Id., decl. of Sharon G. Wrubel.) Immediately following (or, continuing as

part of) Attachment B in the state court petition are a series of exhibits,

including a few selected pages from the transcript of Petitioner’s police

statement, the trial and preliminary hearing transcripts (reflecting an

officer’s testimony that during the interrogation Petitioner had “said” that

he understood his rights), and further correspondence between Petitioner’s

appellate counsel and trial counsel in which appellate counsel 1) stated that

Petitioner had informed appellate counsel that trial counsel had not discussed

this issue with Petitioner, and 2) asked counsel if he had considered the

issue and, if so, why a motion to suppress had not been filed. (Id., letter

dated January 29, 2009). This documentation was followed by a copy of the

opinion rendered in Petitioner’s direct appeal. Also included was a threepage order of the trial court rendered in a habeas corpus proceeding in which

Petitioner had raised counsel’s ineffectiveness for failure to raise the

alleged Miranda violation. (Order of September 17, 2010.) The order recited

the testimony of Petitioner’s trial counsel at an evidentiary hearing to the

effect that Petitioner had told trial counsel that he had nodded “yes” to the

officer when asked if he understood his rights. (Id. at 2.) The order also

included the trial court’s finding that considering the totality of the

evidence, there was no Miranda violation because Petitioner had indicated that

he had understood his rights. (Id. at 2-3.)

3

Case 1:12-cv-00302-LJO-BAM Document 26 Filed 03/06/13 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

the allegedly ineffective assistance of trial and appellate

counsel. He alleged that his trial counsel’s conduct violated

several provisions of the federal Constitution, but he did not

say that his appellate counsel’s allegedly ineffective assistance

violated federal law. Further, he did not cite a case that might

have alerted the court to the federal nature of the claim, and he

did not allege a factual description supporting the claim. The

federal appellate court relied on the fact that the judges of the

highest state court had an opportunity to read the lower court

decision that was claimed by the Petitioner to have been

erroneous concerning the claim involving appellate counsel. The

Supreme Court ruled that judges reviewing a petition were not

required to read lower court opinions or lower court briefs in

the pertinent case that were not included in the petition or

briefing of the petition. Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U.S. at 32.

Here, the California Supreme Court was not required in the

present case to go beyond the petition, briefs, or similar

documents; rather, the selected factual matter concerning

communication and/or investigation of the issue by counsel was

attached to the petition itself. Cf., Miller v. Quinn, 307 Fed.

Appx. 96, 98, 2009 WL 117985, **1 (9th Cir. Jan. 9, 2009)

(unpublished). The petition set forth the essential facts of the

claim, including factual matter concerning Petitioner’s

communications with trial counsel concerning the Miranda waiver,

and it further stated the federal legal basis of the claim and

cited authority. The claim or claims were thus fairly presented. 

See, Insyxiengmay v. Morgan, 403 F.3d 657, 669 (9th Cir. 2005). 

Respondent does not contend that state law prohibited or

4

Case 1:12-cv-00302-LJO-BAM Document 26 Filed 03/06/13 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

otherwise rendered invalid this mode of proceeding. Facts set

forth in the present federal petition concerning counsel’s

failure to ask Petitioner about the mode of his arrest and

whether Petitioner understood his Miranda rights are not

fundamental alterations of the claim concerning counsel’s

ineffectiveness for failure to discuss the issue with Petitioner

that was set forth in the state habeas petition. See, Vasquez v.

Hillery, 474 U.S. 254, 260 (1986). 

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations filed on October 23,

2012, are ADOPTED in full; and 

2. The Respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition is

DENIED; and

3. Petitioner’s motion for a stay is DISMISSED as moot; and

4. The matter is REFERRED back to the Magistrate Judge to

issue directions to Respondent to file an answer to the petition.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 6, 2013 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill B9ed48

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5

Case 1:12-cv-00302-LJO-BAM Document 26 Filed 03/06/13 Page 5 of 5