Rios v. Frauenheim

Filing 57

ORDER DENYING MOTION FORSTAY; DEEMING MATTERSUBMITTED by Judge Beth Labson Freeman Denying 56 Motion to Stay. (tshS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/28/2021)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

ULYSSES ALEXANDER RIOS,
Petitioner,
v.

13
14
15
16

Case No. 15-01357 BLF (PR)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
STAY; DEEMING MATTER
SUBMITTED

SCOTT FRAUENHEIM, Warden,
Respondent.
(Docket No. 56)

17
18

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a writ of habeas corpus pursuant

19

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his state conviction out of Santa Clara County.

20

Respondent filed an answer on June 15, 2020. Dkt. No. 44. Since then, Petitioner has

21

been granted four generous extensions of time to file a traverse, such that the final deadline

22

was set for June 27, 2021. Dkt. Nos. 47, 50, 52, 54.

23

Petitioner has filed a motion for a stay in order to exhaust an additional “subclaim”

24

of ineffective assistance of counsel based on counsel’s alleged failure to request a

25

severance. Dkt. No. 56 at 1. However, Petitioner entered a no contest plea in the

26

underlying conviction, which in California is the functional equivalent of a guilty plea.

27

United States v. Anderson, 625 F.3d 1219, 1220 (9th Cir. 2010). A defendant who pleads

28

guilty cannot later raise in habeas corpus proceedings independent claims relating to the

1

deprivation of constitutional rights that occurred before the plea of guilty. See Haring v.

2

Prosise, 462 U.S. 306, 319-20 (1983) (guilty plea forecloses consideration of pre-plea

3

constitutional deprivations). The only challenges left open in federal habeas corpus after a

4

guilty plea is the voluntary and intelligent character of the plea and the nature of the advice

5

of counsel to plead. Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 56-57 (1985); Tollett v. Henderson, 411

6

U.S. 258, 267 (1973). A defendant who pleads guilty upon the advice of counsel may only

7

attack the voluntary and intelligent character of the guilty plea by showing that the advice

8

he received from counsel was not within the range of competence demanded of attorneys

9

in criminal cases. Id.; Lambert v. Blodgett, 393 F.3d 943, 979 (9th Cir. 2004). This is
precisely the claim that was raised in this action, and to which Respondent has answered

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

on the merits. Dkt. No. 44. Accordingly, the motion for a stay is DENIED as the

12

proposed claim which Petitioner seeks to exhaust is not cognizable.

13

Petitioner was clearly advised that his fourth extension of time to file a traverse

14

would be his last. Dkt. No. 54. The deadline of June 27, 2021 has passed. Accordingly,

15

the matter is deemed submitted.

16

This order terminates Docket No. 56.

17

IT IS SO ORDERED

18
19

Dated: __June 28, 2021_____

________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25

Order Denying Stay; Deeming Matter Submitted
P:\PRO-SE\BLF\HC.15\01357Rios_deny-stay.submitted.docx

26
27
28

2