govinfo:USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01521-5

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
 
 
 1  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
CONRAD CASTILLO, 
Petitioner, 
v. 
MARTIN GAMBOA, 
Respondent. 
No. 1:24-cv-01521 JLT SAB (HC) 
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 
RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING 
RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS IN 
PART, AND REFERRING MATTER BACK 
TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE 
(Docs. 23, 29) 
Petitioner, represented by counsel, is a state prisoner proceeding with a petition for writ of 
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On August 3, 2026, the magistrate judge issued 
findings and recommendations that Respondent’s motion to dismiss be granted in part and 
Petitioner be allowed to proceed with wholly exhausted Claim One.  (Doc. 29.)  On August 13, 
2026, Petitioner filed timely objections.  (Doc. 30.)   
According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a de novo review of the 
case.  Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Petitioner’s objections, the Court 
concludes the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis.   
Contrary to Petitioner’s objections, and as the magistrate judge correctly explained, 
Petitioner did not exhaust the second claim in his amended petition.  He did not argue before the 
state supreme court that it was an error not to continue his sentencing.  He focused instead on the 
trial court’s decision to deny his request to retain a new attorney.  (See Doc. 29 at 3–4.)  It is true 
Case 1:24-cv-01521-JLT-SAB     Document 31     Filed 09/30/26     Page 1 of 2
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
 
 
 2  
 
 
that he briefly addressed continuances in his filing before the state supreme court, but he did not 
argue that he was entitled to a continuance as a matter of due process.  He raised the issue in 
support of his argument that the lower courts had applied state law incorrectly and had been 
wrong to believe that a substitution would lead to indefinite delays.  (See, e.g., Doc. 22-3 at 11–
12.)   
The magistrate judge also correctly found that Petitioner did not exhaust his third claim 
under the procedure laid out in Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2003), overruled in part on 
other grounds as discussed in Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143 (9th Cir. 2007), as the Court 
permitted him to do in a previous order.  (See Doc. 29 at 1–2, 5.) 
Thus, the Court ORDERS: 
1. The findings and recommendations issued on August 3, 2026 (Doc. 29) are 
ADOPTED IN FULL. 
2. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 23) is GRANTED IN PART. 
3. Claims Two and Three are deleted and Petitioner is proceeding solely on the 
exhausted Claim One.  
4. This matter is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings. 
 
 
IT IS SO ORDERED. 
 
Dated:   September 30, 2026_ 
 
Case 1:24-cv-01521-JLT-SAB     Document 31     Filed 09/30/26     Page 2 of 2

Passage view · GavelSight