Uceda v. State of Nevada, 2:22-cv-00687

Background

In 2012 a Nevada jury convicted Alexander Uceda of multiple offenses including robbery with a deadly weapon and discharging a firearm; he was ultimately resentenced to concurrent 10–25 year terms for the robbery counts after state appellate decisions.
Uceda pursued state postconviction relief; the state courts denied relief and the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed denial of his state petition.
In April 2022 Uceda filed a pro se 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition raising ten grounds (ineffective assistance claims, suppression and evidentiary objections, cumulative error, and a state-law sentencing calculation claim).
Respondents moved to dismiss: arguing Ground 10 (sentence calculation) is noncognizable on federal habeas and that Ground 1 is procedurally defaulted in part. Uceda did not oppose the motion.
The district court dismissed Ground 10 as a nonfederal, state-law claim, held the appellate‑counsel component of Ground 1 unexhausted (trial‑counsel portion was adjudicated on the merits), granted the respondents’ motion to file the presentence investigation report under seal, and gave Uceda options and a deadline to proceed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Ground 1 (failure to administer jury oath; appellate counsel ineffective for not raising it) is procedurally defaulted/exhausted	Uceda asserts trial counsel ineffective for not objecting to no oath before voir dire; appellate counsel ineffective for not raising it on appeal	Respondents contend the appellate‑counsel claim is procedurally barred/was not fairly presented to state courts	Court: Trial‑counsel IAC adjudicated on merits by Nevada Supreme Court; appellate‑counsel IAC was not fairly presented and is unexhausted (not a clear independent adequate bar)
Whether Ground 10 (NDOC sentence calculation) is cognizable on federal habeas	Uceda seeks sentencing clarification and contends NDOC miscalculated his term	Respondents argue this is a pure state‑law claim not implicating federal constitutional rights	Court: Ground 10 dismissed as noncognizable on federal habeas; also unexhausted in state court
Whether the presentence investigation report (PSI) may be filed under seal	Uceda did not oppose; PSI contains confidential and sensitive material	Respondents requested sealing because state law and state court record kept PSI sealed	Court: Granted sealing; respondents showed compelling reasons outweighing public access
Procedural disposition for mixed petition (unexhausted claim present) — stay, dismissal, or abandonment	Uceda did not specify; seeks relief via petition	Respondents seek dismissal of noncognizable/defaulted claims	Court: Allowed three options (abandon unexhausted claim, dismiss to exhaust in state court, or move for stay under Rhines); set deadline and explained standards for a stay

Key Cases Cited

Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (1982) (federal habeas requires exhaustion of available state remedies)
Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270 (1971) (fair presentation requirement for exhaustion)
Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (1991) (procedural default doctrine; cause and prejudice exception)
Castille v. Peoples, 489 U.S. 346 (1989) (presentation in a procedural context where merits will not be considered does not satisfy exhaustion)
Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005) (stay and abeyance standards for mixed habeas petitions)
Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006) (standard for sealing judicial records)
Hubbart v. Knapp, 379 F.3d 773 (9th Cir. 2004) (federal habeas does not review state law errors)