Williams v. Borla

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: July 17, 2025
• Docket: 5:24-cv-02878
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 CAMERON WILLIAMS, Case No. 24-cv-02878-PCP

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING PETITION WITH LEAVE TO AMEND v. 9

10 EDWARD BORLA, Defendant. 11

12 13 Cameron Williams, an inmate at the Correctional Training Facility, filed this pro se action 14 for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. His petition is now before the Court for 15 review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2243 and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 16 The Petition is dismissed with leave to amend. 17 I. Background 18 Mr. Williams pleaded guilty to charges of voluntary manslaughter, being a felon in 19 possession of a firearm, and the use of a firearm. See Pet. at 1. On December 9, 2020, he was 20 sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 21 years and 8 months. See id. 21 Mr. Williams did not appeal his conviction, see id. at 2, which because final on February 8, 22 2021. He filed three habeas petitions in the Superior Court of California for the County of San 23 Francisco. See id. at 3–5. He pursued the third of these habeas petitions to the California Supreme 24 Court, which denied it on March 12, 2024. See id. at 5. 25 The instant petition was filed April 22, 2024. See id. at 170. Mr. Williams raises the 26 following claims: 27 1. denial of the right to argue self-defense, even as a mitigating factor; 1 perjured testimony or to present mitigating evidence; 2 3. prosecutorial misconduct on various grounds, including a Brady violation; and 3 4. relief under a newly enacted state law. 4 Pet. at 5–10 (listing claims). 5 II. Standard of Review 6 This Court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person in 7 custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in 8 violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). A 9 district court considering an application for writ of habeas corpus shall “award the writ or issue an 10 order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears 11 from the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto.” 28 U.S.C. 12 § 2243. Summary dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are vague or 13 conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false. See Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 14 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990). 15 III. Analysis 16 The Petition states that Mr. Williams pleaded guilty to the charges challenged in this 17 federal habeas petition. See Pet. at 1. 18 A defendant who pleads guilty cannot later raise in habeas corpus proceedings independent 19 claims relating to the deprivation of constitutional rights that occurred before the plea of guilty. 20 See Haring v. Prosise, 462 U.S. 306, 319–20 (1983) (generally, guilty plea forecloses 21 consideration of pre-plea constitutional deprivations); Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 266–67 22 (1973) (same); see also Al’Faro v. Cullen, No. C 08-4295 SI PR, 2010 WL 4690873, at *3 (N.D. 23 Cal. Nov. 10, 2010) (granting motion to dismiss habeas petition on this basis). After a defendant 24 has entered a plea of guilty, the only challenges left open on federal habeas corpus review concern 25 the (1) voluntary and intelligent character of the plea; and (2) adequacy of the advice of counsel. 26 Womack v. Del Papa, 497 F.3d 998, 1002 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 27 56–57 (1985)). 1 may raise in habeas corpus proceedings the very power of the state to bring him into court to 2 answer the charge brought against him, see Haring, 462 U.S. at 320 (1983) (citing Blackledge v. 3 Perry, 417 U.S. 21, 30 (1974)), and may raise a double jeopardy claim, see id. (citing Menna v. 4 New York, 423 U.S. 61 (1975)). Mr. Williams, however, does not raise claims which fall into these 5 narrow exceptions. And although Mr. Williams claims he suffered from ineffective assistance of 6 counsel, he does not allege that counsel was ineffective specifically in advising him regarding the 7 guilty plea. See Pet. at 7, 20, 27 (listing ineffective actions at trial); 339 (stating Mr. Williams 8 claimed his counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate). Mr. Williams’s claims therefore 9 appear to be foreclosed. Moreover, Mr. Williams’s request for relief under a newly enacted state 10 law is not cognizable in a federal habeas proceeding. See Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 216, 219 11 (2011) (explaining that the federal habeas writ unavailable for violations of state law or for alleged 12 error in the interpretation or application of state law). 13 Because Mr. Williams’s claims appear to be precluded by his guilty plea, the Petition is 14 dismissed with leave to amend. Mr. Williams may amend if he brings a claim which falls into one 15 of the exceptions identified above, and if he already has exhausted such a claim in state court. 16 IV. Conclusion 17 The Petition is dismissed with leave to amend. 18 Mr. Williams may file a FIRST AMENDED PETITION within thirty-five days from the 19 date this order is filed. The first amended petition must include the caption and civil case number 20 used in this order (CV 24-2878-PCP (PR)) and the words FIRST AMENDED PETITION on the 21 first page. An amended pleading supersedes the original pleading. See London v. Coopers & 22 Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 1981) (“[A] plaintiff waives all causes of action alleged in 23 the original complaint which are not alleged in the amended complaint.”); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 24 F.2d 1258, 1262–63 (9th Cir. 1992) (where an amended complaint did not name all the defendants 25 to an action, they were no longer defendants). 26 Failure to file an amended petition within thirty-five days and in accordance with this 27 order will result in a finding that further amendment would be futile. If Mr. Williams fails to 1 It is Mr. Williams’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Mr. Williams must keep the Court 2 informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the Clerk headed “Notice of 3 Change of Address,” and must comply with the Court’s orders in a timely fashion. Failure to do so 4 will result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 5 Procedure 41(b). 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 Dated: July 17, 2025 9 10 P. Casey Pitts 11 United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27