McCarthy v. Frauenheim

N.D. California

McCarthy v. Frauenheim

DecidedMarch 6, 2020

Docket4:16-cv-06820

StatusUnknown

This text of McCarthy v. Frauenheim (McCarthy v. Frauenheim) 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

McCarthy v. Frauenheim, (N.D. Cal. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JAMES T MCCARTHY, Case No. 16-cv-06820-HSG

8 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO FILE MOTION SEEKING DECLARATORY 9 v. JUDGMENT

10 CRAIG KOENIG, Re: Dkt. No. 36 11 Respondent.

12 13 Petitioner, a California state prisoner, filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus 14 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging the validity of a judgment obtained against him in state 15 court. The respondent has filed an answer to the amended petition, and this matter is fully briefed. 16 Petitioner now requests leave to file a motion for a declaratory judgment that the prosecution 17 committed misconduct with respect to the November 15, 2012 preliminary hearing. Dkt. No. 36. 18 Petitioner’s request is DENIED for the following reasons. 19 This Court is without authority to entertain a request for declaratory judgment with respect 20 to a state court conviction. A state prisoner may not seek any kind of declaratory judgment or 21 injunctive relief regarding a challenge to his state conviction apart from filing an application for a 22 writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See Calderon v. Ashmus, 523 U.S. 740, 742–49 23 (1998); see also United States v. Gutierrez, 116 F.3d 412, 415 (9th Cir. 1997). “‘[T]he 24 Declaratory Judgment Act may not be used as a substitute for habeas corpus, coram nobis or other 25 such procedures.’” Gutierrez, 116 F.3d. at 416 (citations omitted) (affirming district court’s denial 26 of motion for declaratory relief because “the Declaratory Judgment Act is not a substitute for a 27 1 § 2255 motion to correct a sentence ...”).! This order terminates Dkt. No. 36. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 Dated: 3/6/2020

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. 5 United States District Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 07 ' The Court notes that petitioner alleged prosecutorial misconduct in his original petition (Dkt. No. 1), and on December 1, 2017, the Court dismissed this claim as procedurally barred (Dkt. No. 15). 28 The Court may not consider a procedurally barred claim. Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 729-30, 750 (1991).

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

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JAMES T MCCARTHY, Case No. 16-cv-06820-HSG

8 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO FILE MOTION SEEKING DECLARATORY 9 v. JUDGMENT

10 CRAIG KOENIG, Re: Dkt. No. 36 11 Respondent.

12 13 Petitioner, a California state prisoner, filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus 14 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging the validity of a judgment obtained against him in state 15 court. The respondent has filed an answer to the amended petition, and this matter is fully briefed. 16 Petitioner now requests leave to file a motion for a declaratory judgment that the prosecution 17 committed misconduct with respect to the November 15, 2012 preliminary hearing. Dkt. No. 36. 18 Petitioner’s request is DENIED for the following reasons. 19 This Court is without authority to entertain a request for declaratory judgment with respect 20 to a state court conviction. A state prisoner may not seek any kind of declaratory judgment or 21 injunctive relief regarding a challenge to his state conviction apart from filing an application for a 22 writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See Calderon v. Ashmus, 523 U.S. 740, 742–49 23 (1998); see also United States v. Gutierrez, 116 F.3d 412, 415 (9th Cir. 1997). “‘[T]he 24 Declaratory Judgment Act may not be used as a substitute for habeas corpus, coram nobis or other 25 such procedures.’” Gutierrez, 116 F.3d. at 416 (citations omitted) (affirming district court’s denial 26 of motion for declaratory relief because “the Declaratory Judgment Act is not a substitute for a 27 1 § 2255 motion to correct a sentence ...”).! This order terminates Dkt. No. 36. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 Dated: 3/6/2020

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. 5 United States District Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 07 ' The Court notes that petitioner alleged prosecutorial misconduct in his original petition (Dkt. No. 1), and on December 1, 2017, the Court dismissed this claim as procedurally barred (Dkt. No. 15). 28 The Court may not consider a procedurally barred claim. Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 729-30, 750 (1991).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

McCarthy v. Frauenheim, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccarthy-v-frauenheim-cand-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack