Sigueiros v. Knipp

Filing 24

ORDER DEEMING PETITION SUBMITTED. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on April 17, 2012. (mmcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/17/2012)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 9 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 13 14 15 16 CLETO SIQUEIROS, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) ) KEN CLARK, Warden, ) ) Respondent. ) ) ______________________________ ) No. C 08-2939 MMC (PR) ORDER DEEMING PETITION SUBMITTED 17 18 19 On June 12, 2008, petitioner, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed the above- 20 titled petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In 2005, in the 21 Superior Court of Santa Clara County, petitioner was convicted of rape and lewd and 22 lascivious acts on a child under the age of fourteen. In the instant petition, petitioner claims 23 his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to challenge the credentials of the 24 prosecution’s medical expert and by failing to call a defense expert to give testimony about 25 the victim’s physical condition. Petitioner also claims his trial counsel failed to call 26 witnesses who could have impeached the victim’s credibility and that his appellate counsel 27 failed to challenge on appeal the validity of petitioner’s sentence. Respondent has filed an 28 1 answer to the petition, and petitioner has filed a traverse. It is undisputed that all of the 2 claims in the petition are exhausted. 3 On January 27, 2010, the same date petitioner filed his traverse, petitioner filed a 4 motion to stay the petition. Therein, petitioner asserted he had recently been informed by the 5 Office of the Public Defender of Santa Clara County that, in view of the decision of the 6 California Court of Appeal in People v. Uribe, 162 Cal. App. 4th 1457 (2008), petitioner’s 7 case had been referred to the Independent Defense Counsel’s Office for a determination as to 8 whether a writ of habeas corpus should be pursued in state court on petitioner’s behalf. See 9 id. at 1463 (holding where videotape of examination of victim by Sexual Assault Response United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 Team (SART) was evidence favorable to defense as set forth in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 11 83 (1963), prosecution’s failure to produce such evidence constituted Brady violation). 12 By order filed July 8, 2010, this Court, while noting petitioner’s failure to state an 13 intent to return to state court to exhaust a new claim based on Uribe, exercised its discretion 14 to grant petitioner a sixty-day stay of the instant proceedings, for the purpose of his 15 informing the Court as to whether he intended to return to state court to exhaust such a claim. 16 The Court advised petitioner that if he failed to respond within sixty days, the stay would be 17 lifted and the petition would be deemed ready for a decision on the merits. 18 When more than sixty days had passed after the filing of the Court’s order, and 19 petitioner had not informed the Court of an intent to return to state court to exhaust a Uribe 20 claim, the Court lifted the stay and reopened the action. 21 On April 11, 2011, petitioner moved to expand the record and submit further briefing 22 based on assertedly newly discovered evidence pertaining to petitioner’s ineffective 23 assistance of counsel claim. By order filed October 18, 2011, the Court granted petitioner’s 24 motion and gave petitioner thirty days, i.e., until November 17, 2011, to file supplemental 25 briefing and additional exhibits with respect to said claim. At petitioner’s request, the Court 26 twice extended the deadline, first to December 19, 2011, and subsequently to January 19, 27 2012. Petitioner’s latest deadline passed three months ago, and petitioner has not filed the 28 aforementioned supplemental briefing and exhibits. 2 1 Accordingly, the petition is hereby deemed submitted, and no further briefing or 2 exhibits may be filed without leave of Court. A decision on the merits will be issued in a 3 separate order. 4 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: April 17, 2012 _________________________ MAXINE M. CHESNEY United States District Judge 7 8 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?