Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06070/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06070-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kathleen Mendoza-Powers
Respondent
Marco Antonio Quintero Mercado
Petitioner

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARCO ANTONIO QUINTERO MERCADO,

Petitioner,

v.

KATHLEEN MENDOZA-POWERS,

Respondent.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:04-cv-06070 OWW TAG HC

ORDER

This case is before the court after judgment was entered

September 27, 2005. Petitioner moves for reconsideration

asserting that he did not receive the Findings and

Recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. He does not deny that

he received the Order Adopting the Report and dismissing the

petition for writ of habeas corpus of September 26, 2005. Nor

does he deny receiving the judgment entered September 27, 2005. 

Petitioner represented to the Court that he was “currently

awaiting a copy of the incoming legal mail log.” More than a

month has passed and the log has not been submitted to the Court

by Petitioner.

After having had more than a month, Petitioner has not

submitted the mail log to support his alleged contention he did

Case 1:04-cv-06070-OWW -TAG Document 20 Filed 12/16/05 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

2

not receive the Magistrate Judge’s Finding and Recommendations. 

None of the pleadings in this case have been returned and

Petitioner has been served at the same address at the State Penal

Institution in Avenal, California.

This case has been pending since July 28, 2004. On October

12, 2004, Petitioner was ordered to file an amended petition for

failure to state cognizable claims and failure to exhaust. 

On December 14, 2004, an order to show cause why the

petition should not be dismissed for failure to exhaust was

issued. Thereafter, Petitioner submitted additional evidence

which the court deemed insufficient and on January 25, 2005, the

Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations ordering

that the petition be dismissed on exhaustion grounds. The

District Judge ordered Petitioner to submit further proof of

exhaustion and on April 24, 2004. On April 25, 2004, the

District Court adopted the Findings and Recommendations re:

dismissal but not exhaustion and ordered the Petitioner to submit

further proof of exhaustion. Thereafter, Petitioner submitted

additional information regarding exhaustion of his claims and the

District Court found it appeared the Petitioner may have

exhausted his claims and referred the case back to the Magistrate

Judge for further proceedings. 

Thereafter, the Magistrate Judge fully analyzed on the

merits Petitioner’s claims that his plea agreement and plea in

open court to a crime which included an eight year lid sentence

was erroneous and that Plaintiff should have received the midterm sentence of four years. In a second ground Petitioner

alleged that the eight year sentence was excessive because he

Case 1:04-cv-06070-OWW -TAG Document 20 Filed 12/16/05 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

3

never agreed to the actual basis for drug enhancement, and

further contends “he was eligible for Proposition 36 year the

court elected not to entertain that option.” 

As the Magistrate Judge correctly found none of these issues

implicate federal constitutional issues and even if, arguendo,

Petitioner states such a violation, a state court’s exercise of

discretion to sentence at the upper end of the eight year lid

term and to deny drug rehabilitation instead of state prison, do 

not implicate Federal Constitutional rights. 

There is no need for further reconsideration of this case. 

On the merits, Petitioner’s claims are not federally cognizable;

meritless; and because no new facts or any change in the law has

been provided by Petitioner, there is no basis to reconsider. 

The motion for reconsideration is DENIED. 

SO ORDERED. 

DATED: December 15, 2005.

/s/ OLIVER W. WANGER

_____________________________

Oliver W. Wanger

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

DENIAL OF CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

No issue debatable among jurists of reason is presented by 

Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus. No certificate

///

///

of appealability shall issue. 

Case 1:04-cv-06070-OWW -TAG Document 20 Filed 12/16/05 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

4

SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 15, 2005. 

/s/ OLIVER W. WANGER

______________________________

Oliver W. Wanger

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

mercado v. powers order

Case 1:04-cv-06070-OWW -TAG Document 20 Filed 12/16/05 Page 4 of 4