Watson v. People of Contra Costa County Superior Court

Opinion

MICHAEL ANTHONY WATSON, Case No. 24-cv-01071-JST

Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE v. TO AMEND; DENYING PENDING MOTIONS SUPERIOR COURT, Re: ECF Nos. 2, 3, 4 Defendant.

Petitioner, an inmate currently housed at Correctional Training Facility (“CTF”), has filed this pro se action. See generally ECF No. 1. His petition (ECF No. 1) is now before the Court for screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Also pending before the Court are the following motions: “Motion: To be represented by Counsel by A Federal District Court. And Consent to Video Visual In-Camera Arraingment,” ECF No. 2; “Motion: To Abide by sufficiency of Evidence Test and the Delay Reduction Rules of Arbitration,” ECF No. 3; and “Motion to Ex. Parte Preliminary Order to Show Cause Compulsory Arbitration Order,” ECF No. 4. Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in a separate order. A. Standard of Review A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), 989, 993 (9th Cir. 2020). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “Specific facts are not necessary; the statement need only “‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citations omitted). While Rule 8 does not require detailed factual allegations, it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677–78 (2009). A pleading that offers only labels and conclusions, or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action, or naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement does not suffice. Id. B. Petition and Attachments (ECF Nos. 1, 1-1, 1-2) Petitioner has filed a petition, ECF No. 1, and the following two attachments: (1) a declaration, ECF No. 1-1; and (2) an affidavit pursuant to “Cal. State Const. Code § 3274 for Relief/For the Violation of Private Rights,” ECF No. 1-2. Generally speaking, the petition and the attached pleadings are unclear and hard to follow. The Court has reviewed the pleadings carefully and has discerned the following arguments. The petition alleges that Respondent Contra Costa Superior Court has failed to exercise “sound discretion” with respect to a habeas petition filed by Petitioner alleging invalidity pursuant to “Fed. Civ. Rights Act of 1964 [2] § 2000a, § 7.01 [3] unfairness / humiliation / of racial”; that Petitioner is seeking modification of, and to vacate, his prior conviction; that Petitioner seeks a writ commanding Respondent to “Locknerization”; that Respondent has abused its discretion; and that Petitioner requests that this Court issue a petition for writ of mandate “ordering the respondent court to follow California Rules of Court, Rule 260(a) and issue an order to respondent, to show cause why petitioner’s, petition for writ of habeas corpus (exhibit A) should not be granted.” ECF No. 1 at 1-4. In the attached memorandum of points and authorities, Petitioner argues that he is entitled to a writ of mandate pursuant to Cal. Civ. Proc. §§ 1085, 1086 and Cal. Rules Ct. 206(a) that orders Respondent to show cause why his habeas petition should not be granted. There is no attachment “Exhibit A" and no attached habeas petition. ECF No. 1 at 5-8. race, in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment; that this motion should be treated as a Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 motion for summary judgment and that he should therefore be allowed to present to the Court all relevant materials; that his prior conviction was improperly considered under “1385, 2018 (Fair and Just Sentencing Reform Act);” that the Three Strikes Act was improperly applied to him; and that he is entitled to resentencing pursuant to AB 1790 eff. Jan. 14, 2002 and the California Constitution. ECF No. 1-1. The affidavit appears to argue that Petitioner’s 2013 sentence of 14 years consecutive to 150 years to life was excessive and unreasonable based on the “‘Goldberg’ Sentencing 2022 January 14 AB1790 Bill,” and in violation of the Three Strikes Statute, and the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments; that Petitioner is entitled to resentencing under Cal. Penal Code § 1385; and that Petitioner is entitled to amnesty because it is undisputed that the conduct was not serious, the hugs were fully clothed, there was no skin to skin contact with the victim, and there was no use of force. ECF No. 1-2. The affidavit also references Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.1, which sets forth the procedure to challenge a federal or state statute; however, the affidavit is unclear as to what statute is being challenged. ECF No. 1-2 at 4. The affidavit also references various rules, state and federal; and certain court cases, but it is unclear what arguments these references support. See generally ECF No. 1-2. C. Dismissal with Leave to Amend The Court dismisses the petition for the reasons set forth below. First, it is unclear whether Petitioner intended to file his petition in federal court or in state court. In the form petition, ECF No. 1 at 1–4, Petitioner references state courts and state court proceedings. The caption on the initial page states “In the Court of Appeals of the State of California, First Appellate District,” and the petition is directed to “The Honorable Presiding Justice, Unknown, and the Honorable Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals of Contra Costa County, State of California.” ECF No. 1 at 1. The named respondent is the “People of Contra Costa County Superior Court.” ECF No. 1 at 1-2. The petition states that Petitioner filed a habeas petition in the Contra Costa County Superior Court on February 13, 2024, regarding a criminal Superior Court. ECF No. 1 at 1-2. The documents attached to the petition—(1) a memorandum of points and authorities, ECF No. 1 at 5-8; (2) a declaration, ECF No. 1-1; and (3) an affidavit pursuant to “Cal. State Const. Code § 3274 for Relief/For the Violation of Private Rights, ECF No. 1-2—primarily reference state statutes. For this Court to have jurisdiction over Petitioner’s suit against a California state agency, there must be federal question jurisdiction, i.e., an allegation of a violation of federal laws or the federal Constitution. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Second, it is unclear what kind of action Petitioner seeks to file—a writ of mandamus, a federal habeas petition, or another type of action altogether. The main document is titled “Petition for Writ of Mandate.” Yet Petitioner also appears to be seeking to modify or vacate his conviction, ECF No. 1 at 3; references a violation of “Fed. Civ. Rights Act of 1964 [2] § 2000a, § 7.01 [3] unfairness/humiliation/of racial,” ECF No. 1 at 3; refers to this action as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, ECF No. 1 at 4 and 7, ECF No. 1-1 at 1; refers to this action as a “civil rights actions,” ECF No. 1-1 at 1; and refers to this action as a writ of coram nobis and as an arbitration, ECF No. 2. To the extent that Petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus from this Court to compel respondent Contra Costa Superior Court to take certain actions, such an action is frivolous as a matter of law. Federal district courts are without power to issue mandamus to direct state courts, state judicial officers, or other state officials in the performance of their duties. A petition for a writ of mandamus to compel a state court or official to take or refrain from some action is frivolous as a matter of law. See Demos v. U.S. District Court, 925 F.2d 1160, 1161-62 (9th Cir. 1991) (noting that petitioner’s actions seeking to require state courts to accept his filings were frivolous as matter of law because federal courts lack jurisdiction to issue writ of mandamus to state court, citing to 28 U.S.C. § 1361); Clark v. State of Wash., 366 F.2d 678, 681 (9th Cir. 1966) (“federal courts are without power to issue writs of mandamus to direct state courts or their judicial officers in the performance of their duties”); see also In re Campbell, 264 F.3d 730, 731– 32 (7th Cir. 2001) (denying petition for writ of mandamus that would order state trial court to give petitioner access to certain trial transcripts which he sought in preparation for filing state post- officer to control or interfere with state court litigation). To the extent that Petitioner is seeking to file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, challenging his 2013 sentence and conviction, any such petition is likely barred as “second or successive” by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) because Petitioner previously challenged his 2013 conviction and sentence in the matter captioned Watson v. Martinez, Case No. 17-cv-0100-BLF. This Court cannot consider a second or successive challenge to Petitioner’s 2013 sentence and conviction unless Petitioner first obtains authorization from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3) (“Before a second or successive application permitted by this section is filed in the district court, the applicant shall move in the appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider the application.”); Chades v. Hill, 976 F.3d 1055, 1056-57 (9th Cir. 2020) (district court is “without power” to entertain second or successive petition unless petitioner first receives authorization from court of appeals).1 To the extent that Petitioner is asking the Court to instruct the state court how to handle a pending state court habeas petition, the Court is barred from doing so by the Younger abstention doctrine. Under principles of comity and federalism, a federal court should not interfere with ongoing state criminal proceedings by granting injunctive or declaratory relief absent extraordinary circumstances. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-54 (1971); Samuels v. Mackell, 401 U.S. 66, 68-74 (1971). The Court grants Plaintiff leave to file an amended petition to correct the identified deficiencies. D. Miscellaneous Motions (ECF Nos. 2, 3, 4) Petitioner has also filed the following additional motions: (1) “Motion: to be represented by Counsel by a Federal District Court. And Consent to Video Visual In-Camera Arraignment,”

1 If Petitioner is challenging the state court’s denials of a petition seeking to strike or dismiss a sentencing enhancement, brought pursuant to Cal. Penal Code § 1385, such a challenge might not be considered a second or successive petition, depending on when Petitioner filed the Cal. Penal Code § 1385. But a petition alleging that relief was improperly denied pursuant to Cal. Penal § 1385 would lack federal habeas jurisdiction, as a federal district court may only consider habeas ECF No. 2; (2) “Motion: to Abide by Sufficiency of Evidence Test and the Delay Reduction Rules of Arbitration,” ECF No. 3; and (3) Motion to Ex. Parte Preliminary Order to Show Cause Compulsory Arbitration Order,” ECF No. 4. 1. ECF No. 2 In ECF No. 2, Petitioner argues that he requires counsel pursuant to the Sixth Amendment, and Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §§ 2, 1282.4; and that he is entitled to confidentiality pursuant Article 4(a). ECF No. 2 also references Sections 1297.282, 1297.283. The Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not apply here. The Court denies Petitioner’s request for counsel. ECF No. 2. The Sixth Amendment guarantees counsel to an accused undergoing criminal prosecution. The protections of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel do not extend to either state collateral proceedings or federal habeas corpus proceedings. Bonin v. Vasquez, 999 F.2d 425, 430 (9th Cir. 1993). Here, Petitioner has already been prosecuted and convicted. Regardless of how Petitioner styles this action—a petition for writ of mandate, a writ of coram nobis, or a writ of error—this action is, in essence, a collateral challenge to his conviction, and the Sixth Amendment therefore does not apply. Petitioner also references California statutes which provide that parties to an arbitration are entitled to counsel. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1282.4. This action is not an arbitration. Generally speaking, arbitrations are an alternative dispute resolution mechanism whereby disputes are determined by an arbitrator outside of the court system. 2. ECF No. 3 In ECF No. 3, Petitioner requests that the Court accept the “sufficiency evidence test, to sustain in the guidelines for a grand jury of the defense” and seeks to proceed pursuant to the Delay Reduction Act, which Petitioner alleges requires that this case be referred to arbitration within 120 days of the complaint being filed. ECF No. 3 at 1. ECF No. 3 also references various California state regulations, statutory codes, and constitutional provisions. The Court denies the request contained within ECF No. 3. The appropriate evidentiary standard or legal standard to apply depends on the action that is being brought and currently it is unclear what relief Petitioner Petitioner may proceed in this Court, the Court will then determine the appropriate legal standard(s) to apply to Petitioner’s claims. The Delay Reduction Act is presumably a California state regulation, and does not govern this Court. Finally, as explained above, an arbitration generally does not take place within the confines of the court system. To the extent that Petitioner is seeking to have this action referred to a settlement program for early settlement proceedings, that request is denied as premature. At this point, it is unclear if this is the type of action which can be referred to settlement. 3. ECF No. 4 In ECF No. 4, Petitioner argues that the Court must recall his sentence pursuant to Cal. R. Ct. 2.585(a) and Cal. Penal Code § 1171.1(b)(1). Petitioner also appears to argue that he is entitled to resentencing, and to assert that this Court has authority to review a state court criminal conviction and sentence pursuant to the 1994 Conformity Act § 61, 28 U.S.C. § 1652, the “Rules of Decisions Act of Federal Statute,” and Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 482, when, as Petitioner alleges is the case here, a state court has taken action beyond its discretionary authority. See generally ECF No. 4. The Court denies the request contained within ECF No. 4. As explained supra, to the extent that Petitioner is seeking to challenge his sentence and conviction, any such petition is likely barred as “second or successive” by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b), and, to the extent that Petitioner is seeking resentencing pursuant to state regulations or state laws, the federal courts are limited in their authority over state courts. For the foregoing reason, the Court orders as follows. 1. The Court denies the requests contained in ECF Nos. 2, 3, and 4. 2. The Court dismisses the action with leave to amend. If Petitioner wishes to file an amended complaint or petition that addresses the deficiencies identified above, Petitioner must file an amended complaint or petition within twenty-eight (28) days of the date of this order. The amended complaint or petition must include the caption and civil case number used in this order, Case No. C 24-01071 JST (PR) and the words “AMENDED COMPLAINT” or “AMENDED 1 questions on the form in order for the action to proceed. An amended complaint (or petition) 2 completely replaces the previous complaints (or petitions). See Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 3 896, 925 (9th Cir. 2012). Accordingly, Petitioner must include in his amended complaint or 4 petition all the claims he wishes to present and all of the defendants or respondents that he wishes 5 to sue. Petitioner may not incorporate material from the prior complaint by reference. Failure to 6 file an amended complaint or petition in accordance with this order in the time provided will result 7 in this action being dismissed without further notice to Petitioner. The Clerk shall include two 8 copies of the court’s form civil rights complaint and two copies of the court’s form petition for a 9 writ of habeas corpus with a copy of this order to Petitioner. This order terminates ECF Nos. 2, 3, and 4. 12 ] Dated: September 27, 2024 .

JON S. TIGA 14 nited States District Judge