Brown v. SF Sheriff's Dept.

CourtDistrict Court, N.D. California
DecidedSeptember 27, 2019
Docket4:19-cv-04399
StatusUnknown

This text of Brown v. SF Sheriff's Dept. (Brown v. SF Sheriff's Dept.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Brown v. SF Sheriff's Dept., (N.D. Cal. 2019).

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 AARON BROWN, Case No. 19-cv-04399-HSG

8 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS; 9 v. GRANTING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; DENYING 10 DEPT. 15, et al., PENDING MOTIONS AS MOOT; DENYING CERTIFICATE OF 11 Respondent. APPEALABILITY

13 Petitioner has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 14 § 2254 challenging state court decisions in May and June 2019 that denied his Mardsen motion 15 and that found him incompetent to stand trial pursuant to California Penal Code § 1370. Dkt. No. 16 13. Petitioner alleges that the state court decisions violated his right to effective assistance of 17 counsel and his right to be free of double jeopardy, and that the state court made these unfavorable 18 rulings in retaliation for his accessing the courts. Dkt. No. 13 at 5. 19 STANDARD OF REVIEW 20 This Court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person in 21 custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in 22 violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). A 23 district court considering an application for a writ of habeas corpus shall “award the writ or issue 24 an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it 25 appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto.” 28 26 U.S.C. § 2243. 27 // 1 DISCUSSION 2 Section 2254 allows a federal court to consider whether a state prisoner’s custody pursuant 3 to a state court judgment violates the federal Constitution or federal law or federal treaties. 28 4 U.S.C. § 2254(a). The instant petition challenges a competency finding made during the course of 5 a state court trial, and not the conviction or judgment that has resulted in the petitioner’s custody. 6 This Court therefore may not review the challenged state court rulings. If petitioner is being held 7 in custody pursuant to a conviction that he believes violates the federal Constitution or federal 8 law, he may file a habeas petition in this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) to challenge the 9 conviction and related custody after the conviction is final and he has exhausted his state court 10 remedies.1 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b). 11 CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 12 The federal rules governing habeas cases brought by state prisoners require a district court 13 that issues an order denying a habeas petition to either grant or deny therein a certificate of 14 appealability. See Rules Governing § 2254 Case, Rule 11(a). A judge shall grant a certificate of 15 appealability “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 16 right,” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), and the certificate must indicate which issues satisfy this standard. 17 Id. § 2253(c)(3). “Where a district court has rejected the constitutional claims on the merits, the 18 showing required to satisfy § 2253(c) is straightforward: [t]he petitioner must demonstrate that 19 reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable 20 or wrong.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Here, petitioner has not made such a 21 showing, and, accordingly, a certificate of appealability will be denied. 22 CONCLUSION 23 For the reasons stated above, the Court orders as follows. Petitioner’s requests for leave to 24 proceed in forma pauperis are GRANTED. Dkt. Nos. 8, 14. The Court DISMISSES the petition 25 for a writ of habeas corpus for failure to state a cognizable claim for federal habeas relief and 26 27 1 DENIES a certificate of appealability. The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of respondent, 2 deny all pending motions as moot, and close the file. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 Dated: 5 ______________________________________ HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. 6 United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Slack v. McDaniel
529 U.S. 473 (Supreme Court, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Brown v. SF Sheriff's Dept., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-sf-sheriffs-dept-cand-2019.