Melendrez v. Haynes

• Docket Number: 2:17-cv-00984-RAJ-BAT
• Decision Date: 25 October 2021
• Parties: VINCENT PAUL MELENDREZ, Petitioner, v. RONALD HAYNES, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Washington

1

VINCENT PAUL MELENDREZ, Petitioner, v. RONALD HAYNES, Respondent.

No. 2:17-cv-00984-RAJ-BAT

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle

October 25, 2021

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

BRIAN A. TSUCHIDA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Petitioner a state prisoner who is currently confined at Stafford Creek Corrections Center in Aberdeen, Washington, seeks relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 from a 2014 King County Superior Court judgment and sentence. Dkt. 18; Dkt. 58-3, Ex. 26. Respondent has filed an answer to Petitioner's amended habeas petition (Dkt. 18) and submitted relevant portions of the state court record. Dkts. 57, 58. Petitioner has filed a response to Respondent's answer. Dkt. 59. Petitioner has also filed a document entitled “motion for finding of subterfuge” (Dkt. 55) and a “motion for evidentiary hearing” (Dkt. 64).

The Court has considered the parties' submissions, and the balance of the record, and recommends Petitioner's “motion for finding of subterfuge” (Dkt. 55) be DENIED. The arguments Petitioner raises in this motion are inextricably linked with and overlap with Petitioner's habeas claims and the Court has thus considered the arguments in its merits determination of Petitioner's federal habeas petition. The Court further recommends that Petitioner's “motion for evidentiary hearing” (Dkt. 64) be DENIED and that the amended federal habeas petition (Dkt. 18) be DENIED and the case be DISMISSED with prejudice. The Court also recommends that a certificate of appealability be DENIED.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The Washington State Court of Appeals (“Court of Appeals”), on direct appeal, summarized the facts relevant to Petitioner's conviction as follows:

After Vincent Melendrez and his wife divorced in 2007, he raised their seven children in western Washington. R.M. is his oldest child, followed by two boys, W.M. and D.M. The family changed residences every year or so. For two long periods, they lived in Bremerton with Melendrez's brother Charlie and mother, Guadalupe. Melendrez began working nights at Microsoft in 2008. In November 2010, the family moved into the Windsor Apartments in Renton.

Melendrez was a strict father. He set three rules for his family: never lie to or betray him, love each other, and defend the family. He posted a schedule on the refrigerator that governed his children's days. If they wanted to have friends over, Melendrez insisted he meet the friends first. When his children misbehaved by talking back, sneaking out or having friends over without permission, Melendrez punished them physically, sometimes hitting them with a belt.

R.M. testified her father began having sex with her in 2008, when she was 12 or 13 and the family lived at Charlie's house in Bremerton. She described the first incident, during which she said Melendrez showed her pornography, put his mouth on her vagina, and had vaginal intercourse with her. She testified that Melendrez had sex with her regularly between 2008 and 2011. She said that her brothers, W.M. and D.M., found her naked in bed with Melendrez in January 2009, then told her grandmother, Guadalupe, what they saw. R.M. said Guadalupe told her, “You need to push him away” and “Don't say anything because you don't want to get the family in trouble.” W.M., D.M., and Guadalupe contradicted R.M.'s testimony, saying these events never happened.

R.M. testified that Melendrez became more controlling after he began having sex with her, rarely letting her leave the house. She said sex became more frequent after the family moved to Renton and that her father virtually moved her into his bedroom.

R.M. told D.M. in early 2009 that she and her father “did it.” When D.M. confronted Melendrez about it, he denied it. Afterward, Melendrez forced R.M. to retract her claim in front of the family. After this incident, R.M. told W.M. two more times that her father was raping her. She also told a friend. On Thanksgiving 2010, R.M. left her house and stayed at the friend's house for three days. She refused to return home. During that time, she told the friend that her father had been having sex with her. Melendrez persuaded R.M. by phone to return home to collect her things. When she arrived, he pulled her inside and slammed the door. As punishment for running away, Melendrez removed R.M. from public high school and enrolled her in online classes. She remained in online school until the next school year began in September 2011, when he allowed her to return.

R.M. continued living at home. That August, Melendrez found pictures of naked people on her phone. He grounded her and threatened to prevent her from returning to high school. Then on October 3, 2011, the manager of the family's apartment complex found R.M. and a 16-year-old boy engaging in oral sex in a common restroom. When the manager notified Melendrez, he appeared to take the news calmly. But R.M. testified that Melendrez then beat her, made her face bleed, shoved soap in her mouth, and called her a whore. She said Melendrez imprisoned her in his room for all of October 4, blocking the door with an ironing board, a mattress, and a shoe. R.M. testified that she had nothing to eat until her brothers arrived home from school and let her out. Her brothers again contradicted her testimony. They testified that R.M. was not barricaded in her father's bedroom that day but that she and D.M. had a fight in which D.M. hit R.M. in the face repeatedly, breaking her lip. D.M. said the fight began because R.M. told D.M. she was planning to lie about their father sexually abusing her.

The next day, October 5, R.M. spoke to a counselor at her high school. During that interview, she told the counselor that her father had been having sex with her since 2008. The police arrested Melendrez later that day. Susan Dippery, a sexual assault nurse examiner, examined R.M. the same day.

At trial, the State presented DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) evidence taken from the underwear R.M. wore to school on October 5 and from the boxers Melendrez was wearing when arrested, along with DNA evidence gathered during the sexual assault examination of R.M. The DNA analysis showed Melendrez's sperm and semen on the exterior of R.M.'s genitals. It also found R.M.'s DNA on the fly of Melendrez's boxers.

Dkt. 58-4, Ex. 32, at 4.

Petitioner was convicted of second-degree rape of a child, third degree rape of a child, two counts of first-degree incest, and witness tampering, and received an indeterminate life sentence. Dkt. 58-3, Ex. 26. Petitioner appealed his conviction to the Court of Appeals filing a brief through appellate counsel and a pro se statement of additional grounds for review. Id., Exs. 28, 29. On December 28, 2015, the Court of Appeals affirmed Petitioner's convictions. Dkt. 58-4, Ex. 32. Petitioner filed a pro se petition for review with the Washington Supreme Court (“Supreme Court”). Id., at Ex. 33. On June 29, 2016, the Supreme Court denied review without comment. Id., Ex. 34. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration. Id., Ex. 35. On July 21, 2016, the clerk of the Supreme Court sent Petitioner a letter explaining that under RAP 12.4(a), a party may not file a motion for reconsideration of an order denying discretionary review. Id., Ex. 36. As such, the court took no action on the motion. Id.

Petitioner subsequently filed a pro se “motion to review propriety of appellate court decision” challenging the legal and factual bases of the Court of Appeals' decision affirming his conviction. Id., Ex. 37. The Court Administrator/Clerk of the Court of Appeals entered a notation ruling regarding the Petitioner's motion stating that “[a]s the Petition for Review was denied by the Supreme Court on June 30, 2016 the motion will be placed in the file without action.” Id., Ex. 38. Petitioner filed a motion to modify the Clerk's ruling which was denied by the Court of Appeals. Id., Exs. 39, 40. Petitioner sought discretionary review by the Supreme Court of the Court of Appeals' denial of his motion to modify. Id., Ex. 41. His petition for review, treated as a motion for discretionary review, argued the Court of Appeals failed to properly consider his motion to modify and sought review of the propriety of the Court of Appeals' opinion affirming his conviction on appeal. Id., Exs. 41, 42. On June 9, 2017, the Commissioner denied discretionary review, explaining there was no right under the state's rules for reexamination of the merits of Petitioner's direct appeal. Id., Ex. 44. The Court of Appeals issued its mandate on October 20, 2017. Id., Ex. 45.

On June 29, 2017, Petitioner filed the instant federal habeas action. Dkt. 1. The Court ordered service of the petition and appointed counsel. Dkt. 7. On September 27, 2017, Petitioner, through counsel, filed an amended habeas petition and moved to stay and abey the federal habeas proceedings based on his attempt to exhaust state-court remedies in a soon-to-be filed state personal restraint petition. Dkt. 19. The Court granted the motion by order dated October 13, 2017, directed that all deadlines be stricken and that the parties each file a status report every 120 days. Dkt. 21. The Court directed that respondent need not file an answer to the petition until 45 days after the stay of proceedings was lifted. Id.

In April of 2018, Petitioner filed a pro se motion to recall the mandate in the Court of Appeals, again challenging the Court of Appeals' decision affirming his convictions. Dkt 58-4, Ex. 46. The Court of Appeals denied the motion without comment. Id., Ex. 47. Petitioner sought discretionary review by the Supreme Court. Id., Ex. 48. The commissioner of the Supreme Court denied review ruling that a motion to recall the mandate is not a proper means by which to reexamine the merits of...