Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Rodrigues v. Barnes

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit

August 16, 2013

MICHAEL JOHN RODRIGUES, Petitioner,
v.
RON BARNES, Warden, Respondent.

ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED PETITION, GRANTING MOTION TO STAY PETITION, DENYING MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE TRAVERSE, ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSING CASE, AND DIRECTING PETITIONER'S COUNSEL TO MAKE AN APPEARANCE ON THE RECORD IF SHE INTENDS TO REPRESENT HIM IN THIS CASE (Docket nos. 10, 13, 14)

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS, District Judge.

Petitioner, a state prisoner, filed this petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging the validity of his state conviction. The Court directed Respondent to file an answer to the petition and granted Petitioner leave to file a traverse. Now pending before the Court are Petitioner's motions to file a first amended petition, stay the petition pending exhaustion of state remedies with respect to two unexhausted claims, and for an extension of time to file a traverse.

BACKGROUND

A jury convicted Petitioner of three counts of forcible rape (Cal. Penal Code § 261(a)(2)), and one count of spousal rape (Cal. Penal Code § 262). He was sentenced to four consecutive terms of fifteen years to life in state prison. Resp't Exh. 4.[1]

Petitioner appealed the conviction and concurrently filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus with the California Court of Appeal. Exh. 1. On May 18, 2011, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment of conviction and denied the habeas petition. Exh. 4. On August 24, 2011, the California Supreme Court denied review of both the appeal and the habeas petition. Exhs. 5-8.

Petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed the present habeas petition on June 1, 2012, raising six claims. Docket no. 1. On July 9, 2012, the Court issued an order directing Respondent to show cause why the petition should not be granted. Docket no. 2.

On February 11, 2013, before Respondent filed an answer to the petition, Petitioner, who had retained counsel in October 2012 to represent him in this case, submitted a proposed first amended petition and moved the Court to hold further proceedings in abeyance pending the exhaustion of two additional claims in state court. Docket no. 10. On February 13, 2013, Respondent filed an answer to the original petition. Docket no. 12. Thereafter, Petitioner moved the Court to file the first amended petition and for an extension of time to file a traverse to the answer. Docket nos. 13, 14.

The Court ordered Respondent to address Petitioner's motions, which are now fully briefed.

DISCUSSION

I. Motion to File First Amended Petition

The original petition filed in this case contains the following six claims: (1) ineffective assistance of trial counsel based on counsel's failure to present evidence from a rape trauma syndrome expert to rebut the prosecution's evidence; (2) ineffective assistance of trial counsel based on counsel's failure to move to limit the admission of the prosecution's rape trauma syndrome evidence; (3) ineffective assistance of trial counsel based on counsel's failure to present expert testimony on factors affecting the reliability of a victim's testimony, such as memory and suggestibility; (4) ineffective assistance of trial counsel based on counsel's mishandling of the impeachment of Jane Doe I; (5) ineffective assistance of trial counsel based on counsel's failure to object to, and request an admonition with respect to, alleged prosecutorial misconduct; and (6) the violation of due process based on the court's admission of testimony about Petitioner's prior sexual conduct. Docket no. 1 (Pet. Attach. 1).

Respondent does not argue that any of these claims is unexhausted and, as noted, has filed an answer in response thereto.

The proposed first amended petition includes the six exhausted claims from the original petition, three additional exhausted claims that Petitioner states he inadvertently omitted from the original petition, and two new claims ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.