(HC)Castaneda v. Sherman ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ISAAC SCOTT CASTANEDA, No. 1:20-cv-00377-NONE-JDP (HC) 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING 14 STU SHERMAN, MOTION TO STAY 15 Respondent. (Doc. Nos. 2, 14) 16 17 18 Petitioner Isaac Scott Castaneda is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 19 pauperis with a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, filed 20 simultaneously on March 4, 2020, with a motion to stay and hold petition in abeyance. (Doc. 21 Nos. 1 & 2.) In his petition, petitioner argues new evidence in his case was discovered in 2017,1 22 namely contradictory statements made by the victim, including statements suggesting a motive to 23 fabricate. (Doc. No. 1.) Petitioner further argues that the evidence required a hearing in state 24 court under applicable law, which did not take place, and that the “culmination of errors of both 25 1 In his response to the magistrate judge’s order to show cause why his petition should not be 26 dismissed as untimely, petitioner states that the victim made his allegedly contradictory 27 statements to one of the witnesses in June 2017. (Doc. No. 10.) In fact, that witness’s affidavit, and the others bearing on this issue, aver that the victim made the statements in 2012. (Doc. No. 28 1, Exs. C–F.) Those affidavits were signed in 2017. (Id.) 1 the prosecution and defense attorneys violated petitioner’s constitutional rights.” (Doc. No. 1 at 2 8–9.) In his motion to stay, petitioner contends that only the issue of the newly discovered 3 evidence is exhausted and that his other alleged grounds for relief are not. (Doc. No. 2.) The 4 matter was referred to a United States magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 5 § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 6 On April 7, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge ordered petitioner to show cause why his 7 petition should not be dismissed as untimely. (Doc. No. 9.) On June 5, 2020, after receiving 8 petitioner’s response, the magistrate judge ordered further briefing from petitioner, informing 9 petitioner that he could elect to proceed on his one exhausted claim; that he could request a stay 10 under Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005); or that he could request a stay under Kelly v. Small, 11 315 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2002). (Doc. No. 12.) On July 14, 2020, petitioner elected to proceed by 12 requesting a stay under Rhines. (Doc. No. 13.) 13 On July 27, 2020, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 14 recommending that the pending motion to stay and hold petition in abeyance be denied. (Doc. 15 No. 14.) The magistrate judge found that petitioner had not met his burden under Rhines, which 16 requires a petitioner to demonstrate good cause for the petitioner’s failure to exhaust his or her 17 claims. (Id. at 2–3.) The magistrate judge also denied petitioner’s appended requests for the 18 court to intervene in the state court proceedings and for the court to issue a declaratory judgment. 19 (Id. at 4–5.) The magistrate judge granted petitioner’s request to amend his petition. (Id. at 5.) 20 Petitioner was given thirty days within which to file any objections to the findings and 21 recommendations. (Id.) Petitioner has not filed any objections and the time to do so has now 22 passed. 23 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 24 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 25 court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 26 ///// 27 ///// 28 ///// wOAOe □□ □□ UVM EOIN INE VR MVOC tw PO te OY VV 1 Accordingly, 2 1. The findings and recommendations issued on July 27, 2020, (Doc. No. 14), are 3 adopted in full; and 4 2. The motion to stay (Doc. No. 2) is denied. 5 | IT IS SO ORDERED. a " 6 Li. wh F Dated: _ October 1, 2020 Sea 1" S098 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28