Contreras v. Gamboa
- Beth Freeman
- 5:20-cv-06206
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Contreras v. Ndoh, Judge Freeman ordered an answer on exhausted habeas claims, allowing the challenge to proceed without deciding its merits.
Ernesto M. Contreras and Rosemary Ndoh, the respondent identified in the order as warden; the case proceeds on Contreras’s exhausted claims, with the respondent required to answer or seek dismissal on procedural grounds.
What happened
In Contreras v. Ndoh, Ernesto M. Contreras, a California inmate representing himself, challenged his state conviction in a petition asking the federal court to grant relief.
Contreras raised claims about consecutive sentences, the state appellate court’s refusal to send the sentencing issue back to the trial court, and allegedly insufficient evidence for Count 3, aggravated sexual assault of a child. He had also asked to pause the case while pursuing a new polygraph-related claim in state court, but the court denied that request without prejudice. After he did not file a renewed request, the court proceeded with the exhausted claims.
Judge Beth Abson Freeman ordered the respondent to answer the petition within 90 days or file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds. The court found that the claims could be considered under the federal habeas statute, but it did not decide whether Contreras should receive relief.
The detailed version
- Contreras v. Gamboa · No. 5:20-cv-06206
- Beth Freeman
- Feb. 23, 2021
Background
Ernesto M. Contreras, a California inmate proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his state conviction in Santa Clara County Superior Court. He asked the court to stay, or pause, the federal case so he could exhaust a new claim involving a polygraph test in state court. The court previously denied that request without prejudice and allowed him to file a renewed motion that met the requirements identified in Rhines v. Weber. The deadline passed without a renewed motion or other response from Contreras. The court therefore stated that the case would proceed on the exhausted claims.
Claims
Contreras asserted three grounds for relief: (1) the trial court incorrectly imposed consecutive sentences under state law; (2) the state appellate court violated due process by failing to send the matter back after the allegedly improper sentences; and (3) there was insufficient evidence to support Count 3, aggravated sexual assault of a child, violating his right to a fair trial and due process.
The court concluded that, when read generously, these claims were legally eligible for review under § 2254 and required a response from the respondent. This conclusion did not resolve whether any claim ultimately has merit.
Order
The court issued an order to show cause. It directed the respondent to file and serve an answer complying with Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases within 90 days and to provide relevant portions of the previously transcribed state trial record. Contreras could file a reply, called a traverse, within 30 days after receiving the answer.
The respondent was also allowed to file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds instead of an answer. The order set deadlines for any opposition and reply. It reminded Contreras that he was responsible for prosecuting the case, serving court filings on the respondent, updating his address, and complying with court orders. The order warned that failing to do so could result in dismissal for failure to prosecute.
Judge Beth Abson Freeman did not grant or deny habeas relief and did not decide the merits of the exhausted claims. The order instead moved the case forward for a response.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.