(HC) Salas v. McDowell, No. 1:2015cv00766 - Document 15 (E.D. Cal. 2017)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending that the Court Deny Petitioner's 14 Motion for Stay and Abeyance signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 12/11/2017. Referred to Judge Dale A. Drozd. Objections to F&R due by 1/16/2018. (Sant Agata, S)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 9 BENITO SANCHEZ SALAS, 10 Petitioner, 11 12 13 14 Case No. 1:15-cv-00766-DAD-SKO HC FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION THAT THE COURT DENY PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR STAY AND ABEYANCE v. NEIL MCDOWELL, Warden, Respondent. (Doc. 14) 15 16 Petitioner, Benito Sanchez Salas, is a state prisoner proceeding with a petition for writ of 17 18 habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Through counsel, Petitioner filed his petition on May 19 18, 2016. Respondent answered on August 17, 2015; Petitioner filed a traverse on September 2, 20 2017. Although Petitioner is represented by counsel, Fay Arfa, on November 3, 2017, Petitioner 21 filed his own motion for stay and abeyance to permit him to exhaust a new claim arising from the 22 Supreme Court’s decision in Rosemond v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 1240 (2014). Petitioner also 23 requests the Court take judicial notice that his counsel, Ms. Arfa, is no longer communicating with 24 him. Respondent did not file a response to the motion. 25 26 27 Because Petitioner is represented by counsel, the Court recommends denying the motion. 28 U.S.C. § 1654 (“In all courts of the United States the parties may plead and conduct their own 28 1 1 2 cases personally or by counsel.”). I. Grounds Alleged for Stay and Abeyance. Notwithstanding that all filings must be made by counsel, the Court will briefly address 3 4 Petitioner’s arguments in his motion to stay. In his petition, Petitioner presented four grounds for 5 habeas relief: (1) insufficiency of evidence to support a murder conviction; (2) insufficiency of 6 7 evidence of intent to kill; (3) the convictions for homicide on an aider and abettor theory were unconstitutional because Petitioner’s co-defendant’s jury deadlocked; and (4) insufficiency of 8 9 10 evidence on premeditation and deliberation for first degree murder. Petitioner raised each of these claims before the California Court of Appeal and Supreme Court. (Doc. 1 at 2-3.) 11 Petitioner now argues that the Supreme Court’s holding in Rosemond “as to aider and 12 abettor liability is relevant to the facts of [his] case in several respects (notwithstanding petitioner’s 13 14 claim of innocence) and nowhere more so than in the misstatement of an element of the murder offense as charged in this case.” (Doc. 14 at 2) (citing Rosemond, 134 S. Ct. at 1240). 15 Petitioner’s motion specifically requests that the Court enter an order to stay pursuant to 16 17 18 19 20 21 Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005). Consequently, the Court will analyze Petitioner’s request per the Rhines criteria. II. Standards for Granting an Order of Stay and Abeyance. A federal district court may not address a petition for writ of habeas corpus unless the petitioner has exhausted state remedies with respect to each claim raised. Rose, 455 U.S. 509, 515 22 (1982), abrogated on other grounds by Rhines, 544 U.S. 269. A petition is fully exhausted when 23 24 the highest state court has had a full and fair opportunity to consider all claims before the petitioner 25 presents them to the federal court. Picard, 404 U.S. at 276. "[P]etitioners who come to federal 26 courts with 'mixed' petitions run the risk of forever losing their opportunity for federal review of the 27 unexhausted claims. Rhines, 544 U.S. at 275. 28 2 Federal district courts should stay mixed petitions only in limited circumstances. Id. at 277. 1 2 A district court may stay a mixed petition if (1) the petitioner demonstrates good cause for failing to 3 have first exhausted all claims in state court; (2) the claims potentially have merit; and (3) petitioner 4 has not been dilatory in pursuing the litigation. Id. at 277-78. 5 6 In the alternative, a court may stay a mixed petition if (1) the petitioner amends his petition to delete any unexhausted claims; (2) the court stays and holds in abeyance the amended, fully 7 exhausted petition, allowing the petitioner to proceed to exhaust the deleted claims in state court; 8 9 and (3) petitioner later amends his petition and reattaches the newly exhausted claims to the 10 original petition. Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063, 1070-71 (9th Cir. 2003). The Kelly procedure is 11 riskier than the Rhines procedure since it does not protect the petitioner's unexhausted claims from 12 expiring during the stay. King v. Ryan, 564 F.3d 1133, 1135 (9th Cir. 2009). Despite the risk of the 13 14 unexhausted claims becoming time-barred in the course of the Kelly procedure, a petitioner may elect to use that alternative since it does not require him to demonstrate good cause as Rhines does. 15 16 King, 564 F.3d at 1140. The Court will analyze Petitioner’s motion based on the criteria set forth in Rhines, per 17 18 19 20 21 22 Petitioner’s request. III. Petitioner has not Submitted a Mixed Petition. Petitioner argues that the Court should grant his motion to stay because “(1) [P]etitioner had good cause for his failure to exhaust; (2) the claims are potentially meritorious; and (3) there is no indication that the [P]etitioner engaged in intentionally dilatory litigation tactics.” (Doc. 14 at 2) 23 24 25 (citing Rhines, 544 U.S. 269). A mixed petition contains both exhausted and unexhausted claims. Rose, 455 U.S. at 510. 26 District courts have the discretion to stay a mixed habeas petition and hold it in abeyance to allow a 27 petitioner to present unexhausted claims to state courts. Rhines, 544 U.S. 269. “Once the petitioner 28 3 1 2 exhausts his state remedies, the district court will lift the stay and allow the petitioner to proceed in federal court.” Id. at 275-76. Petitioner’s four original claims in his petition were raised and rejected by the California 3 4 Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. (Doc. 1 at 2-3.) All of the claims contained in 5 Petitioner’s habeas petition are fully exhausted and the petition is not a mixed petition. 6 Consequently, Rhines is not applicable to Petitioner’s case. Even if Petitioner correctly filed his 7 motion through counsel, the Court would not recommend granting the motion based on Rhines. 8 IV. 9 Judicial Notice Petitioner asks the Court to take judicial notice “of the fact that, as of . . . nearly two years 10 11 ago, [P]etitioner’s privately obtained counsel has failed to respond to requests regarding state of the 12 case or any other matter.” Id. at 1. 13 14 The Court may take judicial notice of “a fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute because it: (1) is generally known within the trial court’s territorial jurisdiction; or (2) can be 15 16 17 18 accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” FED. R. CIV. P. 201(b). It would not be appropriate for the Court to take judicial notice of counsel’s failure to respond to Petitioner. 19 20 21 22 However, the Court takes seriously the allegation that counsel is not communicating with Petitioner. An attorney is obligated to “keep a client reasonably informed about significant developments relating to the employment or representation [of the client] including promptly complying with reasonable requests for information.” CAL RULES OF PROF’L CONDUCT r. 3-500 23 24 (STATE BAR OF CAL. 2017). Therefore, the Court will order counsel to make contact with Petitioner 25 to come to a resolution regarding communication. 26 // 27 // 28 4 1 V. Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that the Court deny the motion for a 2 3 Conclusion and Recommendation stay to permit Petitioner to exhaust a new ground for habeas relief. 4 The Court ORDERS: 5 1. Counsel for Petitioner, Fay Arfa, to establish contact with Petitioner within 7 days of the 6 date of this order; and 7 2. Within 14 days of counsel contacting Petitioner, counsel shall notify the Court as to 8 whether the issues with Petitioner have been resolved. 9 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 10 11 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C ' 636(b)(1). Within thirty (30) days 12 after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, either party may file written 13 objections with the Court. The document should be captioned AObjections to Magistrate Judge=s 14 Findings and Recommendations.@ Replies to the objections, if any, shall be served and filed within 15 16 17 fourteen (14) days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may constitute waiver of the right to appeal the District Court's 18 order. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 ((9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 19 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 20 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 23 Dated: December 11, 2017 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28 5 .
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
