1

2

3

4

5

6

7 THE DISTRICT COURT OF GUAM 8

9 ELI CHARFAUROS QUINTANILLA, CIVIL CASE NO. 24-00015

10 Petitioner, DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATIONS TO PROCEED IN 11 vs. FORMA PAUPERIS (ECF NOS. 6, 8), DISMISSING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 12 ALBERTO C. LAMORENA III, THE HABEAS PETITIONS (ECF NOS. 1, ALLEN BORJA, LETA J. WOMACK, 3, 7, 8), DENYING AS MOOT THE 13 V. NUEZA, PETER SANTOS, T. SCOTT, REQUESTS FOR APPOINTMENT OF CHRISTOPHER CHAMPION, and COUNSEL (ECF NOS. 7, 8), AND 14 ALTERNATE PUBLIC DEFENDER’S DISMISSING WITHOUT PREJUDICE OFFICE, THE CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT 15 (ECF NO. 8) Respondents. 16

17 Before the court are Petitioner Eli Charfauros Quintanilla’s petitions for writ of habeas 18 corpus (collectively, the “habeas petitions”), ECF Nos. 1, 3, 7, 8; applications to proceed in 19 district court without prepaying fees or costs (the “applications to proceed in forma pauperis”), 20 ECF Nos. 6, 8; requests for appointment of counsel, ECF Nos. 7, 8; and civil rights complaint 21 under

, ECF No. 8. For the reasons stated below, the applications to proceed in 22 forma pauperis are GRANTED, the habeas petitions and civil rights complaint are DISMISSED 23 without prejudice, and the requests to appoint counsel are DENIED as moot. 1 I. Background1 2 On July 8, 2024, the court received two handwritten petitions for a writ of habeas corpus 3 from Petitioner—one dated June 28, 2024, and the other dated July 1, 2024. See ECF Nos. 1, 3. 4 The first petition alleges that Petitioner is unlawfully confined at the Guam Department of 5 Corrections in violation of the Constitution and explains that he has also filed habeas petitions in 6 the Superior Court of Guam, the Supreme Court of Guam, and the Ninth Circuit Court of 7 Appeals. See Pet. at 1, 4, ECF No. 1. The second petition makes similar allegations. See Second 8 Pet. at 1-5, ECF No. 3. Both petitions allege facts that arise out of the same criminal case in the 9 Superior Court of Guam (People v. Quintanilla, CF0298-23) and ultimately request the same

10 relief: that his case be dismissed, that the charges be expunged from his record, and that he be 11 released from prison. Pet. at 1, ECF No. 1.; Second Pet. at 5, ECF No. 3. Both petitions were also 12 filed before the underlying case reached a final judgment. See Pet. at 3, ECF No. 1; Second Pet. 13 at 3, ECF No. 3. 14 On August 19, 2024, Petitioner filed a form Notice, Consent, and Reference of Civil 15 Action to a Magistrate Judge along with a copy of his second petition for writ of habeas corpus. 16 ECF No. 4. Then on October 29, 2024, Petitioner filed the first application to proceed in forma 17 pauperis after being informed by the Clerk’s Office of the $5.00 filing fee required to initiate 18 habeas corpus proceedings in federal court. See ECF Nos. 5, 6. Therein, Petitioner states his 19 inability to pay the filing fee in this action, attesting to both a lack of income and

20 expenses/financial obligations. See Appl. at 1-2, ECF No. 6. 21 Petitioner filed a third habeas petition on January 16, 2025. Third Pet., ECF No. 7. This 22 petition arises out of the same case in the Superior Court of Guam and makes similar claims 23

1 Page citations throughout this Decision and Order refer to CM/ECF-generated page numbers. 1 regarding his confinement in violation of the U.S. Constitution. Compare Third Pet. at 2-3, ECF 2 No. 7, with Pet. at 1-4, ECF No. 1, and Second Pet. at 1-5, ECF No. 3. Unlike the first two 3 petitions, the third petition alleges violations of certain provisions under Guam law but 4 ultimately requests the same remedy: dismissal of his case, expungement of his record, and 5 immediate release from prison. Third Pet. at 3, ECF No. 7. Also unlike the first two petitions, the 6 third petition alleges that Petitioner’s underlying case reached a final judgment: he was 7 sentenced “on or around [November 8, 2024,] . . . by Honorable Judge Alberto Lamorena III.” 8 Id. at 2. In conclusion, Petitioner “move[d] for adequate APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL” in 9 this case. Id. (emphasis in original).

10 Most recently, on March 21, 2025, Petitioner filed a fourth petition for a writ of habeas 11 corpus along with a form complaint from the Northern District of West Virginia titled “State 12 Civil Rights Complaint Pursuant to

.” Fourth Pet., ECF No. 8. Also attached to 13 this filing is a second application to proceed in forma pauperis, an incomplete Petitioner Trust 14 Account Report, and a Consent to Collection of Fees from Trust Account.

. The 15 fourth habeas petition is a copy of the third petition. Compare ECF No. 7, with ECF No. 8. But 16 the civil rights complaint newly asserts claims under § 1983 based on (1) “falsified police 17 reports,” (2) “Arresting officer [Champion] committed perjury,” (3) “Improper search & 18 seizure/4th Ammendment [sic] right violation,” and (5) “Ineffectiveness of counsel.” See Fourth 19 Pet. at 19-20, ECF No. 8 (first bracket in original). The civil rights complaint names all but two

20 of the same defendants (excluding Judge Lamorena and the Alternate Public Defender’s Office) 21 and requests “fair and just compensation” for these violations. Id. at 21. 22 23 1 II. Application to Waive Fees 2 Plaintiff has requested to proceed without prepaying fees or costs. Appl., ECF No. 2; 3 Fourth Pet. at 22-25, ECF No. 8. Under

(a)(1), a court may authorize an 4 individual to commence a civil action without prepaying the required filing fee, provided that the 5 person “submits an affidavit [stating] . . . that the person is unable to pay such fees or give 6 security therefor.”

(a)(1). 7 The court has reviewed Petitioner’s applications to proceed in forma pauperis and finds 8 that he has sufficiently demonstrated that his is unable to pay the filing fee or give security 9 therefor. Petitioner is incarcerated in the Guam Department of Corrections located in Mangilao,

10 Guam. Appl. at 1, ECF No. 6; Fourth Pet. at 22, ECF No. 8. He indicated in both applications 11 that he does not have a source of income and does not have money deposited in a checking or 12 savings account. Appl. at 1-2, ECF No. 6; Fourth Pet. at 22-23, ECF No. 8. Petitioner further 13 indicated that he does not have any expenses or financial obligations. Appl. at 2, ECF No. 6; 14 Fourth Pet. at 24, ECF No. 8. Accordingly, the court finds that Plaintiff cannot pay the filing fee 15 in this case and GRANTS the applications to proceed in forma pauperis. 16 III. Habeas Petitions and Civil Rights Complaint 17 A. Jurisdiction 18 The court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to

because 19 Petitioner alleges that he is “in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court” “in violation of

20 the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” See

(a). Petitioner also 21 asserts claims under

. 22 23 1 B. Leave to Amend Petitions 2 Ordinarily, “[a] party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course,” and any 3 further amendments may be made “only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s 4 leave.” FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a)(1), (2);

; see also Mayle v. Felix,

, 5 655 (2005) (applying rules governing pleading amendments to habeas proceedings under 28

). Leave to amend “shall be freely given when justice so requires.” FED. R. CIV. P. 7 15(a)(2). The court must consider whether additional amendments would prejudice the opposing 8 parties, would cause undue delay, are made in bad faith, or would be futile. See Kroessler v. CVS 9 Health Corp.,

(9th Cir. 2020).

10 Here, Petitioner filed three amended habeas petitions for a writ of habeas corpus after his 11 initial petition was filed—the fourth of which copied the third petition and added a civil rights 12 complaint. See ECF Nos. 1, 3, 7, 8. Although Petitioner filed his second petition as a matter of 13 course, he did not seek leave of the opposing parties or the court before filing the third and fourth 14 petitions. See FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a)(2). Nonetheless, at the time the third and fourth petitions were 15 filed, the court had not yet ruled on the applications to proceed in forma pauperis or screened his 16 habeas petitions. Respondents also have not been served or ordered to respond to any petition. 17 Therefore, Respondents would not be prejudiced by granting Petitioner leave to amend. E.g. 18 Grant v. Hill, No. 11cv3015-JAH,

, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2021). 19 Furthermore, there is no evidence that the amendments were made in bad faith or will cause

20 undue delay in resolving this case.

As such, the court GRANTS Petitioner leave to amend, 21 allowing the filing of the third and fourth habeas petitions. 22 23 1 C. Habeas Petitions 2 When a petitioner applies to proceed in forma pauperis under

, the court 3 must screen the lawsuit to determine whether the action is “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state 4 a claim upon which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is 5 immune from such relief.”

(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii); Lopez v, Smith,

, 6 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000). Furthermore, when a habeas petitioner files under

, the 7 court must summarily dismiss the case “if it plainly appears from the petition and any attached 8 exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in district court.” Rules Governing Section 9 2254 Cases, R. 4, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254 [hereinafter “Section 2254 Rules”].

10 Habeas petitions brought under

must “(1) specify all the grounds for 11 relief available to the petitioner; (2) state the facts supporting each ground; and (3) state the relief 12 requested.” Section 2254 Rules, R. 2(c)(1)-(3); cf. Mayle,

. However, 13 “exhaustion of state remedies is required as a prerequisite to consideration” of a federal habeas 14 petition. See Pitchess v. Davis,

(1975). Section 2254(b)(1) provides that a 15 petition for a writ of habeas corpus “shall not be granted unless it appears that—(A) the applicant 16 has exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the State; or (B)(i) there is an absence of 17 available State corrective process; or (ii) circumstances exist that render such process ineffective 18 to protect the rights of the applicant.”

(b)(1). A petitioner “shall not be deemed 19 to have exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the State, within the meaning of this

20 section, if he has the right under the law of the State to raise, by any available procedure, the 21 question presented.”

(c); see also Rose v. Lundy,

(1982) 22 (discussing function of a total exhaustion rule precluding relief in federal court until a petitioner 23 meets this requirement). 1 As explained above, Petitioner has filed a total of four petitions for a writ of habeas 2 corpus in this case, all of which arise out of the same underlying criminal charges. See ECF Nos. 3 1, 3, 7, 8. In the first petition, Petitioner alleged that he “submitted [the writ of habeas corpus] to 4 the Superior Court of Guam, The Supreme Court of Guam, the District Court of Guam, and the 5 United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.” Pet. at 1, ECF No. 1. Petitioner restated 6 this allegation in the second petition. Second Pet. at 1, ECF No. 3. However, in the third and 7 fourth petitions, Petitioner excluded this and only alleged the dates of his pretrial confinement, 8 his trial and sentencing in the Superior Court of Guam, and his post-trial confinement. Third Pet. 9 at 2, ECF No. 7; Fourth Pet. at 2, ECF No. 8. Petitioner does not explain whether he has

10 exhausted all remedies available to him in the state courts, i.e., whether his post-conviction 11 actions filed in the Superior Court of Guam and the Guam Supreme Court have been addressed, 12 and the court has no credible allegations before it that indicate otherwise. Therefore, Petitioner 13 has failed to demonstrate the necessary exhaustion of state remedies available to him at the time 14 that he filed the most recent habeas petition. As such, the habeas petitions are DISMISSED 15 without prejudice and the requests for appointment of counsel made therein are DENIED as 16 moot.2 17 D. Civil Rights Complaint 18 Habeas petitions brought under

and civil rights complaints brought 19 under the

present distinct avenues for relief. See Nettles v. Grounds,

922, 927 (9th Cir. 2016) (citing Muhammad v. Close,

(2004)). Habeas corpus 21 provides an avenue for a prisoner to challenge “the validity of his confinement or to particulars

22 2 The court further provides Petitioner with notice that, in the event that he files a new petition and still has not exhausted his state court remedies, the court will dismiss the case with prejudice. See Slack v. McDaniel,

473, 489 (2000) (“Once the petitioner is made aware of the exhaustion requirement, no reason exists for him not to exhaust [his remedies] before returning to federal court. The failure to comply with an order of the court is grounds for dismissal with prejudice.”). 1 affecting its duration,” while § 1983 actions allow a prisoner to challenge the conditions or 2 circumstances of his confinement. Id. This distinction is significant because claims “within the 3 core” of habeas corpus may not be brought under § 1983 and vice versa. See id. Despite this 4 distinction, in cases where a prisoner’s complaint under § 1983 evinces a clear intention to state 5 a habeas claim, the court should treat the complaint as a habeas petition. See Trimble v. City of 6 Santa Rosa,

(9th Cir. 1995). When the intent to do so is unclear, however, the 7 court should not convert the complaint.

8 As explained above, Petitioner first alleged claims under § 1983 in the fourth habeas 9 petition. See Fourth Pet. at 7-21, ECF No. 8. Therein, Petitioner alleges five claims:

10 (1) “Falsified police reports”; (2) “Arresting officer . . . committed perjury”; (3) “Improper 11 search and seizure/4th [Amendment] right violation”; (4) “5th Amendment Constitutional rights 12 violation/speedy trial & Due Process of law violations”; and (5) “Ineffectiveness of counsel.” Id. 13 at 19-20. Even though these claims are raised under § 1983, the supporting facts do not challenge 14 the conditions or circumstances of Petitioner’s confinement. See Nettles, 830 F.3d at 927. 15 Instead, the claims appear to challenge “the validity of [Petitioner’s] confinement.” Id. 16 Specifically, Petitioner challenges the validity of his initial traffic stop in the first claim, 17 statements made by an officer during trial in the second claim, illegally obtained evidence in the 18 third claim, the duration of his trial proceedings in the fourth claim, and his counsel’s 19 performance in the fifth claim. Fourth Pet. at 19-20, ECF No. 8. And even so, the court finds that

20 Petitioner has not clearly evinced an intent to state a habeas claim through his civil rights 21 complaint. See Trimble,

. As explained above, Petitioner filed the civil rights 22 complaint along with a copy of his third habeas petition. Rather than amending the habeas 23 petition again, Petitioner opted to use a standard form civil rights complaint from the Northern 1 District of West Virginia. See Fourth Pet. at 7, ECF No. 8. Additionally, Petitioner submitted a 2 second application to proceed in forma pauperis, again evincing an intent to file distinct claims. 3 Id. at 22-25. 4 Therefore, the court declines to treat the civil rights complaint as a habeas petition and 5 instead, the claims made therein are DISMISSED without prejudice. This dismissal should not 6 be construed as preventing Petitioner from realleging these claims in a renewed petition for 7 habeas corpus after he has exhausted the remedies available to him in state court. See supra 8 Section III(C); see also Trimble,

(concluding that the district court properly 9 dismissed the § 1983 claims without prejudice and directed the prisoner to address the claims in

10 a habeas petition). 11 E. Certificate of Appealability 12 Under

, a petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus may only appeal a 13 district court’s dismissal of his petition after obtaining a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 14 § 2253(c)(1). The court may only issue a certificate of appealability where the petitioner has 15 “made a substantial showing of the denial of his constitutional right.”

(c)(2). As 16 such, the petitioner must show that “jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s 17 resolution of his constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are 18 adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El v. Cockrell,

, 327 19 (2003). Petitioner has failed to make a “substantial showing of the denial of his constitutional

20 right,” and, therefore, the court finds that Petitioner is not entitled to certificate of appealability. 21 IV. Conclusion 22 For the foregoing reasons, the applications to proceed in forma pauperis are GRANTED, 23 the habeas petitions are DISMISSED without prejudice, and the requests for appointment of Page 10 of 10

1 || counsel included therein are DENIED as moot. Furthermore, the civil rights complaint attached 2 || to the fourth habeas petition is DISMISSED without prejudice. The court declines to issue a 3 || certificate of appealability, and the Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 4 SO ORDERED.

6 /s/ aoe x Tydingco-Gatewood ye ge 4 i HUN 4 Dated: Aug 06, 2025

. 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24