Mundy v. Madden
Filing
11
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION to Deny Petitioner's Motion for a Stay [ECF No. 6 ] and Dismiss Unexhausted Claim. Signed by Magistrate Judge Andrew G. Schopler on 12/4/2017.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(jjg)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
10
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Andrew MUNDY,
11
Case No.: 17-cv-0174-CAB-AGS
Petitioner,
12
v.
13
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
TO DENY PETITIONER’S MOTION
FOR A STAY (ECF No. 6) AND
DISMISS UNEXHAUSTED CLAIM
Raymond MADDEN,
14
Respondent.
15
16
The California Court of Appeal previously ruled that petitioner Andrew Mundy’s
17
lengthy sentence passed constitutional muster, and that he was “precisely the type of
18
recidivist offender targeted by [California’s] Three Strikes law.” (ECF No. 10-1, at 19; see
19
id. at 12-17.) In this habeas proceeding, Mundy seeks review of that ruling and also raises
20
a new argument never presented to the state courts: that his trial and appellate attorneys
21
were ineffective for failing to challenge the constitutionality of his sentence. But his
22
attorneys did contest the constitutionality of his sentence, 1 and the state appellate court
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
Appellate counsel urged the California Court of Appeal to reach the constitutional
sentencing issue because either: (1) the trial attorney’s general sentencing objections
adequately preserved the claim or (2) the failure to raise more specific objections
constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. (ECF No. 6, Exh. A, at 9-11.) The appellate
court never addressed the waiver argument and presumably found the issue preserved
below. (See generally ECF No. 10-1.)
1
17-cv-0174-CAB-AGS
1
squarely rejected that argument. Thus, Mundy’s new claim is plainly meritless. And his
2
motion for a stay to pursue this unexhausted claim, therefore, fails.
3
Mundy seeks a stay under either Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005), or Kelly v.
4
Small, 315 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2003), overruled on other gds. by Robbins v. Carey, 481
5
F.3d 1143 (9th Cir. 2007). But neither a Rhines stay nor a Kelly stay should be granted to
6
exhaust a plainly meritless claim. Rhines, 544 U.S. at 277 (“[T]he district court would
7
abuse its discretion if it were to grant [the petitioner] a [Rhines] stay when his unexhausted
8
claims are plainly meritless.” (citation omitted)); Knowles v. Muniz, 228 F. Supp. 3d 1009,
9
1016 (C.D. Cal. 2017) (“[A] Kelly stay will be denied when the court finds such a stay
10
would be futile,” such as when “petitioner seeks a stay to exhaust a meritless claim.”
11
(citations omitted)).
12
The Court recommends that Mundy’s motion for a stay be DENIED and that his
13
unexhausted ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim be DISMISSED. Upon being served
14
with a copy of this report, each party has 14 days to file any objections. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
15
72(b)(2). A party may respond to any such objection within 14 days of being served with
16
it. See id.
17
Dated: December 4, 2017
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
17-cv-0174-CAB-AGS
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?