Archuleta v. Covello ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 DAVID CLAIR ARCHULETA, Case No. 23-cv-05222-JSC 8 Petitioner, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE; 9 v. GRANTING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 10 PATRICK COVELLO, (ECF No. 5) Respondent. 11 12 INTRODUCTION 13 Petitioner, a prisoner of the State of California proceeding without an attorney, has filed a 14 petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his state court judgment. 15 (ECF No. 11.) Because the petition states grounds for federal habeas relief that are capable of 16 judicial determination, a response from Respondent is warranted. Petitioner is also GRANTED 17 leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). 18 BACKGROUND 19 In 2022, Petitioner was convicted of a variety of offenses in Lake County Superior Court. 20 (Id. at 2.) The trial court sentenced him to a term of 17 years and four months in state prison. (Id.) 21 In 2023, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, and the California Supreme Court 22 denied Petitioner’s petition for review. (Id. at 2-3.) The California Supreme Court also denied a 23 petition for a writ of habeas corpus in 2023. (Id. at 4.) Petitioner then filed the instant federal 24 petition. 25 DISCUSSION 26 I. Standard of Review 27 This Court may entertain a petition for a writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person in 1 violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). It 2 shall “award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should 3 not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not 4 entitled thereto.” Id. § 2243. 5 II. Legal Claims 6 Petitioner makes the following claims: (1) he received ineffective assistance of counsel at 7 trial (Grounds One and Two (ECF No. 11 at 7-11)); and (2) he received ineffective assistance of 8 counsel on appeal (Ground Three (id. at 12-14)). These claims, when liberally construed, are 9 capable of judicial review and determination. 10 The Court notes that Petitioner claims “an illegal search and seizure of Petitioner’s 11 girlfriend’s house” because “no search warrant issued.” (Id. at 5:20-22.) Elsewhere, Petitioner 12 argues trial counsel was ineffective for failure to file a motion to suppress evidence obtained by 13 this unlawful search. (Id. at 7-8 (“Ground One” ¶ 3).) Federal habeas review of Fourth 14 Amendment claims is barred unless the state did not provide an opportunity for full and fair 15 litigation of those claims. Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 481-82, 494 (1976); see Gordon v. 16 Duran, 895 F.2d 610, 613-14 (9th Cir. 1990) (whether or not defendant actually litigated Fourth 17 Amendment claim in state court is irrelevant because California law provides such an opportunity 18 to do so). To the extent Petitioner means to assert an independent claim for federal habeas relief 19 on the grounds of an unlawful search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment, such a claim is 20 not capable of judicial determination under Stone v. Powell. However, to the extent he argues trial 21 counsel was ineffective in not filing a motion to suppress evidence on the grounds of an illegal 22 search, such a claim is capable of judicial determination. 23 CONCLUSION 24 For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown, 25 1. The clerk shall serve electronically a copy of this order upon the respondent and the 26 respondent’s attorney, the Attorney General of the State of California, at the following email 27 addresses: SFAWTParalegals@doj.ca.gov and docketingsfawt@doj.ca.gov. The petition and 1 California. The clerk shall serve by mail a copy of this order on petitioner. 2 2. Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on Petitioner, on or before August 1, 3 2024, an answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, 4 showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be granted based upon the claims capable 5 of judicial determination, as described above. Respondent shall file with the answer and serve on 6 || Petitioner a copy of all portions of the state trial record that have been transcribed previously and 7 that are relevant to a determination of the issues presented by the petition. If Petitioner wishes to 8 || respond to the answer, he shall do so by filing a traverse (a reply) with the Court and serving it on 9 Respondent on or before September 2, 2024. 10 3. Respondent may, on or before August 1, 2024, file a motion to dismiss on procedural 11 grounds in lieu of an answer, as set forth in the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 4 of the Rules 12 Governing Section 2254 Cases. If Respondent files such a motion, Petitioner shall file with the 5 13 Court and serve on Respondent an opposition or statement of non-opposition on or before 14 || September 2, 2024, and Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on Petitioner a reply on or 3 15 before September 16, 2024. a 16 4. It is Petitioner’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Petitioner must keep the Court 3 17 informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper captioned “Notice of Change of 18 || Address.” He must comply with the Court’s orders in a timely fashion. Failure to do so may 19 || result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 20 Procedure 41(b). 21 5. Due to Petitioner’s lack of funds, his application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis 22 || is GRANTED. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 Dated: May 2, 2024 26 net 7 JAGQUELINE SCOTT CORL United States District Judge 28