Contreras v. Gamboa
- Beth Freeman
- 5:20-cv-06206
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Contreras v. Ndoh, Judge Freeman allowed three habeas claims to proceed but denied the request to pause the case without prejudice.
The order affects Ernesto M. Contreras's federal challenge to his state conviction by allowing three claims to proceed while denying, without prejudice, his request to pause the case to pursue a new state-court claim.
What happened
In Contreras v. Ndoh, Ernesto M. Contreras, a California inmate representing himself, challenged his state conviction through a federal habeas petition. He claimed that the state trial court improperly imposed consecutive sentences, that the state appeals court violated due process by not sending the case back, and that insufficient evidence supported one aggravated-sexual-assault conviction.
Contreras also asked the federal court to pause the case so he could present a new claim about a polygraph test in state court. The court said his three existing claims could proceed, but found that he had not shown the required reasons for pausing the case, including good cause and that the new claim was not plainly meritless.
Judge Freeman denied the stay request without prejudice, allowing Contreras to file a renewed motion addressing those requirements. If he does not do so, the case will proceed on the claims the court found eligible for review.
The detailed version
- Contreras v. Gamboa · No. 5:20-cv-06206
- Beth Freeman
- Jan. 4, 2021
Background
Ernesto M. Contreras, identified as a California inmate proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his conviction in Santa Clara County Superior Court. The petition raised three claims: that the state trial court improperly imposed consecutive sentences under state law; that the state appeals court violated due process by failing to send the matter back after the alleged sentencing error; and that insufficient evidence supported Count 3, aggravated sexual assault of a child, violating his fair-trial and due-process rights.
Initial Review
The court concluded that, liberally read, the three claims were legally cognizable under § 2254 and required a response from the respondent. The court did not decide whether Contreras should ultimately receive habeas relief on those claims.
Motion for Stay
Contreras also sought a stay so he could exhaust in state court a new claim concerning a polygraph examination that he said he passed and that was not argued on appeal. A stay would pause the federal case while the new claim is presented to the state courts. Applying the requirements described in Rhines v. Weber, the court explained that Contreras had to show good cause for not previously exhausting the claim, that the unexhausted claim was not plainly meritless, and that he had not engaged in intentionally delaying litigation. The court found that he had not addressed those requirements.
Disposition
The court denied the motion for a stay without prejudice to filing a renewed motion that satisfies the Rhines requirements. The order stated that, if Contreras does not make that showing, the case will proceed on the three claims identified as cognizable. Judge Beth Labson Freeman signed the order on January 4, 2021.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.