Opinion
23-cv-05222-JSC
05-02-2024
DAVID CLAIR ARCHULETA, Petitioner, v. PATRICK COVELLO, Respondent.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE; GRANTING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (ECF NO. 5)
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
INTRODUCTION
Petitioner, a prisoner of the State of California proceeding without an attorney, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his state court judgment. (ECF No. 11.) Because the petition states grounds for federal habeas relief that are capable of judicial determination, a response from Respondent is warranted. Petitioner is also GRANTED leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”).
BACKGROUND
In 2022, Petitioner was convicted of a variety of offenses in Lake County Superior Court. (Id. at 2.) The trial court sentenced him to a term of 17 years and four months in state prison. (Id.) In 2023, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, and the California Supreme Court denied Petitioner's petition for review. (Id. at 2-3.) The California Supreme Court also denied a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in 2023. (Id. at 4.) Petitioner then filed the instant federal petition.
DISCUSSION
I. Standard of Review
This Court may entertain a petition for a writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). It shall “award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto.” Id. § 2243.
II. Legal Claims
Petitioner makes the following claims: (1) he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial (Grounds One and Two (ECF No. 11 at 7-11)); and (2) he received ineffective assistance of counsel on appeal (Ground Three (id. at 12-14)). These claims, when liberally construed, are capable of judicial review and determination.
The Court notes that Petitioner claims “an illegal search and seizure of Petitioner's girlfriend's house” because “no search warrant issued.” (Id. at 5:20-22.) Elsewhere, Petitioner argues trial counsel was ineffective for failure to file a motion to suppress evidence obtained by this unlawful search. (Id. at 7-8 (“Ground One” ¶ 3).) Federal habeas review of Fourth Amendment claims is barred unless the state did not provide an opportunity for full and fair litigation of those claims. Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 481-82, 494 (1976); see Gordon v. Duran, 895 F.2d 610, 613-14 (9th Cir. 1990) (whether or not defendant actually litigated Fourth Amendment claim in state court is irrelevant because California law provides such an opportunity to do so). To the extent Petitioner means to assert an independent claim for federal habeas relief on the grounds of an unlawful search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment, such a claim is not capable of judicial determination under Stone v. Powell. However, to the extent he argues trial counsel was ineffective in not filing a motion to suppress evidence on the grounds of an illegal search, such a claim is capable of judicial determination.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown, 1. The clerk shall serve electronically a copy of this order upon the respondent and the respondent's attorney, the Attorney General of the State of California, at the following email addresses: SFAWTParalegals@doj.ca.gov and docketingsfawt@doj.ca.gov. The petition and the exhibits thereto are available via the Electronic Case Filing System for the Northern District of California. The clerk shall serve by mail a copy of this order on petitioner.
2. Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on Petitioner, on or before August 1, 2024, an answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be granted based upon the claims capable of judicial determination, as described above. Respondent shall file with the answer and serve on Petitioner a copy of all portions of the state trial record that have been transcribed previously and that are relevant to a determination of the issues presented by the petition. If Petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he shall do so by filing a traverse (a reply) with the Court and serving it on Respondent on or before September 2, 2024.
3. Respondent may, on or before August 1, 2024, file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds in lieu of an answer, as set forth in the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. If Respondent files such a motion, Petitioner shall file with the Court and serve on Respondent an opposition or statement of non-opposition on or before September 2, 2024, and Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on Petitioner a reply on or before September 16, 2024.
4. It is Petitioner's responsibility to prosecute this case. Petitioner must keep the Court informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper captioned “Notice of Change of Address.” He must comply with the Court's orders in a timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
5. Due to Petitioner's lack of funds, his application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.