Contreras v. Backer et al
Filing
21
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 10 Motion to Dismiss (see order for details); granting 18 Motion to Add Additional Exhibit. Petitioner to have 30 days to either: (1) inform the Court that he wishes to abandon the unexhau sted grounds; (2) inform the Court that he wants to dismiss this petition to return to state court to exhaust his unexhausted claims; or (3) file a motion for a stay, asking this court to hold his exhausted claims in abeyance while he returns to stat e court to exhaust his unexhausted claims. If Petitioner elects to abandon his unexhausted grounds, Respondents to have 30 days from Petitioner's declaration of abandonment to answer; Petitioner to reply 30 days thereafter. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 6/2/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
8
9
10
11
12
13
GUSTAVO CONTRERAS,
)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
vs.
)
)
RENEE BAKER, et al.,
)
)
Respondents.
)
____________________________________/
3:14-cv-00435-LRH-WGC
ORDER
14
15
This is a habeas corpus proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 brought by Gustavo Contreras, a
16
Nevada prisoner. On December 22, 2014, respondents filed a motion to dismiss certain claims in
17
Contreras’s petition, arguing that some the claims are unexhausted, some of the claims are not
18
sufficiently plead for the purposes of Habeas Rule 4, and one of the claims is procedurally defaulted.
19
ECF No. 10. Subsequent to the briefing on that motion, Contreras filed a motion to add an
20
additional exhibit in support of his petition. ECF No. 18. Those two motions are now before the
21
court for decision.
22
I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
23
On May 19, 2011, after a jury trial in the state district court for Clark County, Nevada,
24
Contreras was convicted of battery by a prisoner with a deadly weapon. The judgment of conviction
25
was amended on October 19, 2012. He was sentenced under the small habitual criminal statute to 60
26
to 150 months in the Nevada Department of Corrections (NDOC). On September 12, 2012, the
27
Nevada Supreme Court affirmed his conviction.
28
///
1
On April 12, 2013, Contreras filed a state post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
2
That petition was denied on June 26, 2013. Contreras appealed. The Nevada Supreme Court
3
affirmed.
4
Contreras initiated this proceeding by mailing his federal habeas petition on August 5, 2014.
5
In his petition, he pleads ten separate grounds for habeas relief, all alleging ineffective assistance of
6
counsel in his state criminal proceeding.
7
II. EXHAUSTION
8
Respondents argue Contreras has failed to exhaust state court remedies for Grounds 8, 9, and
9
10 of his petition. A federal court will not grant a state prisoner's petition for habeas relief until the
10
prisoner has exhausted his available state remedies for all claims raised. Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S.
11
509 (1982); 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b). A petitioner must give the state courts a fair opportunity to act on
12
each of his claims before he presents those claims in a federal habeas petition. O'Sullivan v.
13
Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 844 (1999); see also Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365 (1995). A claim
14
remains unexhausted until the petitioner has given the highest available state court the opportunity to
15
consider the claim through direct appeal or state collateral review proceedings. See Casey v. Moore,
16
386 F.3d 896, 916 (9th Cir. 2004); Garrison v. McCarthey, 653 F.2d 374, 376 (9th Cir.1981).
17
A habeas petitioner must “present the state courts with the same claim he urges upon the
18
federal court.” Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276 (1971). To achieve exhaustion, the state court
19
must be “alerted to the fact that the prisoner [is] asserting claims under the United States
20
Constitution” and given the opportunity to correct alleged violations of the prisoner's federal rights.
21
Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365 (1995); see Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1106 (9th Cir.
22
1999). It is well settled that 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b) “provides a simple and clear instruction to potential
23
litigants: before you bring any claims to federal court, be sure that you first have taken each one to
24
state court.” Jiminez v. Rice, 276 F.3d 478, 481 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S.
25
509, 520 (1982)).
26
27
28
A claim is not exhausted unless the petitioner has presented to the state court the same
operative facts and legal theory upon which his federal habeas claim is based. Bland v. California
2
1
Dept. of Corrections, 20 F.3d 1469, 1473 (9th Cir. 1994). The exhaustion requirement is not met
2
when the petitioner presents to the federal court facts or evidence which place the claim in a
3
significantly different posture than it was in the state courts, or where different facts are presented at
4
the federal level to support the same theory. See Nevius v. Sumner, 852 F.2d 463, 470 (9th Cir.
5
1988).
6
In Ground 8, Contreras alleges that he received ineffective assistance of appellate counsel
7
because counsel preserved only one issue on direct appeal (dealing with the alleged destruction of
8
video evidence) and failed to present the ineffective assistance of trial counsel claims now alleged in
9
his federal petition. While he raised some ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claims in his
10
state post-convicting proceeding, Contreras did not raise any claims alleging that appellate counsel
11
was ineffective in failing to raise claims based on ineffective assistance of trial counsel.1 ECF Nos.
12
14-7 and 14-8. Thus, Ground 8 is unexhausted.
13
In Ground 9, Contreras alleges that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel because
14
counsel failed to locate and present evidence – a “booking summary report” on the victim Christian
15
Contreras – which would have shown that the State knowingly presented false evidence that the
16
victim was not a gang member. Contreras presented this claim and evidence to the Nevada Supreme
17
Court in his state post-conviction proceeding. ECF No. 14-7, p. 23-24, 29. However, because the
18
claim and evidence had not been presented to the lower court, the Nevada Supreme Court “declined
19
to consider them in the first instance.” ECF No. 14-8, p. 8 n.2. The presentation of a claim in a
20
procedural context in which it will not be considered by the state court is not a "fair presentation" for
21
purposes of exhaustion. Castille v. Peoples, 489 U.S. 346, 351-52 (1989). Thus, Ground 9 is
22
unexhausted.
23
24
In Ground 10, Contreras alleges that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel
because counsel failed to locate and present testimony from Christian Contreras’s cell-mate, Jason
25
26
1
27
As a general matter, the Nevada Supreme Court will not entertain ineffective assistance of
counsel claims on direct appeal. Pellegrini v. State, 34 P.3d 519, 535 (Nev. 2001).
28
3
1
Scott Spencer. He has not demonstrated that he has presented this claim to the Nevada Supreme
2
Court in any fashion. ECF Nos. 13-6, 13-14, 14-7 and 14-8. Thus, Ground 10 is unexhausted.
3
III. INSUFFICIENT PLEADING
4
Respondents argue that Grounds 1, 2, 6, 7, 8 (in part), and 10 do not meet the pleading
5
standards applicable to claims for habeas relief. A petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C.
6
§ 2254 cannot rely upon mere “notice” pleading, as may be found in other civil cases in the United
7
States District Courts. Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75 n. 7 (1977) (citing Advisory
8
Committee Note to Rule 4, Rules Foll. Cases under 28 U.S.C. § 2254). The petition must instead
9
contain particularized facts entitling the petitioner to relief for each ground specified, with the factual
10
portions of the petition sufficiently detailed to enable the district court to determine, from the face of
11
the petition alone, whether the petition merits further review. Adams v. Armontrout, 897 F.2d 332,
12
334 (8th Cir. 1990).
13
With respect to Grounds 1, 2, 6, and 7, this court agrees that the claims lack specificity. Even
14
so, respondents’ argument goes more to the merits of the claims rather than whether a cognizable
15
habeas claim has been stated. Thus, the claims shall not be dismissed as insufficiently plead. It
16
should be noted, however, that this court’s consideration of each claim will be confined to the record
17
before the Nevada Supreme Court at the time that court denied the claim. See Cullen v. Pinholster,
18
131 S. Ct. 1388, 1398 (2011).
Similarly, Grounds 8 and 102 are adequately stated so as to merit further review by this court.
19
20
However, as discussed above, both claims are unexhausted. Thus, under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), this
21
court is not permitted to grant relief with respect to either claim.
22
///
23
///
24
///
25
26
2
27
Respondents argument that Contreras has failed to develop the factual basis for Ground 10 has,
to some extent, been remedied by Contreras’s submission of a purported written statement from Jason
Scott Spencer.
28
4
1
IV. PETITIONER’S OPTIONS RE: UNEXHAUSTED CLAIMS
2
Because the court finds that Contreras’s habeas petition is a “mixed petition,” containing both
3
4
exhausted and unexhausted claims, Contreras has these options:
1. He may submit a sworn declaration voluntarily abandoning the unexhausted claims in his
federal habeas petition, and proceed only on the exhausted claims;
5
6
2. He may return to state court to exhaust his unexhausted claims, in which case his federal
habeas petition will be denied without prejudice; or
7
3. He may file a motion asking this court to stay and hold in abeyance his exhausted federal
habeas claims while he returns to state court to exhaust his unexhausted claims.
8
9
See Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (1982); Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005); Kelly v. Small, 315
10
F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2002); King v. Ryan, 564 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 2009). Petitioner's failure to choose
11
any of the three options listed above, or seek other appropriate relief from this court, will result in his
12
federal habeas petition being dismissed. Petitioner is advised to familiarize himself with the
13
limitations periods for filing federal habeas petitions contained in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d), as those
14
limitations periods may have a direct and substantial effect on whatever choice he makes regarding
15
his petition.
16
V. PROCEDURAL DEFAULT
17
Respondents argue that this court is barred from considering Ground 9 because it is
18
procedurally defaulted. “The independent and adequate state ground doctrine prohibits the federal
19
courts from addressing the habeas corpus claims of state prisoners when a state-law default
20
prevented the state court from reaching the merits of the federal claims.” Thomas v. Lewis, 945 F.2d
21
1119, 1122 (9th Cir. 1991).
22
As discussed above, the Nevada Supreme Court refused to consider Ground 9 because
23
Contreras failed to first present the claim to the state district court. Because it is uncertain whether
24
the Nevada courts would entertain a petition properly raising Ground 9, the claim is unexhausted, but
25
not procedurally defaulted. See Johnson v. Lewis, 929 F.2d 460, 464 (9th Cir. 1991) (finding claim
26
unexhausted because “[a]n Arizona court may decide that [state law] does not bar consideration of
27
[petitioner's] unexhausted due process claim and proceed to grant him the relief he has requested”).
28
5
1
VI. MOTION TO ADD ADDITIONAL EXHIBIT
2
With his motion to add an additional exhibit, Contreras asks leave of the court to include the
3
aforementioned declaration by Jason Scott Spencer among the exhibits submitted with his initial
4
petition. The court sees this as merely a “housekeeping” motion to correct Contreras’s inadvertent
5
omission of the exhibit when he filed his petition. On that basis, the motion shall be granted.
6
Whether the proposed exhibit is eventually considered by the court in adjudicating Claim 10 will be
7
governed by Pinholster and 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2).
8
9
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that respondents’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 10) is
GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part, as follows. Grounds 8, 9, and 10 of the federal petition
10
are unexhausted. The remaining claims are exhausted, not procedurally defaulted, and state a viable
11
claim for habeas relief.
12
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner shall have thirty (30) days to either: (1)
13
inform this court in a sworn declaration that he wishes to formally and forever abandon the
14
unexhausted grounds for relief in his federal habeas petition and proceed on the exhausted grounds;
15
OR (2) inform this court in a sworn declaration that he wishes to dismiss this petition without
16
prejudice in order to return to state court to exhaust his unexhausted claims; OR (3) file a motion for
17
a stay and abeyance, asking this court to hold his exhausted claims in abeyance while he returns to
18
state court to exhaust his unexhausted claims. If petitioner chooses to file a motion for a stay and
19
abeyance, or seek other appropriate relief, respondents may respond to such motion as provided in
20
Local Rule 7–2.
21
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if petitioner elects to abandon his unexhausted grounds,
22
respondents shall have thirty (30) days from the date petitioner serves his declaration of
23
abandonment in which to file an answer to petitioner's remaining grounds for relief. The answer
24
shall contain all substantive and procedural arguments as to all surviving grounds of the petition, and
25
shall comply with Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Proceedings in the United States District Courts
26
under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
27
///
28
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner shall have thirty (30) days following service
of respondents' answer in which to file a reply.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if petitioner fails to respond to this order within the time
permitted, this case may be dismissed.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner’s motion to add an additional exhibit (ECF
No. 18) is GRANTED under the terms set forth above.
DATED this 2nd day of June, 2015.
8
9
LARRY R. HICKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7
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?