(DP) Contreras v. Davis ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JORGE CONTRERAS, Case No. 1:19-cv-01523-JLT 12 Petitioner, DEATH PENALTY CASE 13 v. ORDER DIRECTING THE FILING OF POST-EXHAUSTION STATUS 14 RAUL MORALES, Acting Warden of the CONFERENCE STATEMENT(S) California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility, 15 Respondent.1 16 17 18 On September 6, 2024, petitioner, through appointed counsel, filed a status update 19 regarding his state exhaustion petition. (Doc. 136.) Therein, petitioner advised that “[t]he 20 California Supreme Court denied [his] petition for review on July 31, 2024[,] [s]ee In re 21 George Lopez Contreras on Habeas Corpus, Case No. S285502[,] and that “[t]he state 22 exhaustion proceedings are now completed; however, a petition pursuant to the California 23 Racial Justice Act remains pending in the California Court of Appeal[,] [s]ee In re George 24 Lopez Contreras on Habeas Corpus, 5th District Case No. F088110.” (Id. at 2.) 25 The record in the case reflects that on January 8, 2024, following petitioner’s filing of his 26 1 The Court takes notice that California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation records reflect petitioner is 27 incarcerated at the California Substance Abuse and Treatment Facility, 900 Quebec Avenue, Corcoran, CA 93212. See https://ciris.mt.cdcr.ca.gov/results?lastName, last visited on September 16, 2024; Fed. R. Evid. 201. Accordingly, Acting Warden Raul Morales shall be substituted as Respondent. 28 U.S.C. § 2242; Rules Governing 1 | federal habeas corpus petition on August 1, 2023, this federal proceeding was stayed and held 2 | in abeyance of the above noted state court exhaustion proceeding.” (See Docs 134, 126, 3 | respectively); see also Lawrence v. Florida., 549 U.S. 327, 329-36 (2007) (state post-conviction 4 | application remains pending [for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2)] until final resolution 5 | through the state’s postconviction procedures; Carothers v. Rhay, 594 F.2d 225, 228 (9th Cir. 6 | 1979) (state remedies are exhausted upon fair presentation to the state courts, and merits 7 | disposition of the claims by the highest state court). 8 Accordingly, the parties are directed to meet and confer and file a joint status report 9 | within thirty (30) days of the date of this order regarding post-exhaustion proceedings. The 10 | Court anticipates the parties will discuss in the report(s): (1) their respective positions regarding 11 petitioner’s compliance with the statute of limitations and the exhaustion status of the federal 12 | petition (including as to the noted California Racial Justice Act claim(s) pending in the state 13 | court of appeal), (2) their respective positions regarding lifting of the exhaustion stay, and (3) 14 | any desired changes in the current post-exhaustion case schedule. 15 16 IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ September 16, 2024 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 2g | 2 The Court, in its order granting the exhaustion stay, directed that petitioner’s counsel inform it within 30 days of a final decision by the state courts on the exhaustion petition. (See Doc. 134 at 18.)