Luckett v. People of State of California

Background

Charles Edward Luckett, an incarcerated person proceeding without a lawyer, filed this action under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the federal law that permits a state prisoner to seek a writ of habeas corpus challenging custody based on a state conviction. The opinion states that Luckett was convicted by a jury in 2015 in Alameda County Superior Court of murder committed while engaged in attempted robbery, with personal use of a firearm. He received sentences including 25 years to life without parole, life without parole for special-circumstance murder, and five years for firearm use.

Luckett’s operative petition raised claims concerning the denial of relief under California Penal Code § 1170.95, now renumbered as § 1172.6, and fees, assessments, and restitution fines allegedly imposed without a hearing on his ability to pay. In an earlier order in this action, the court found the first claim cognizable for federal habeas relief and dismissed the second claim with prejudice because success on it would not affect Luckett’s release from custody, as required for federal habeas jurisdiction.

The court later stayed and administratively closed this action while the Ninth Circuit considered a related appeal involving whether excluding evidence about Luckett’s brother violated his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to present a complete defense. The Ninth Circuit denied that appeal on the merits on March 15, 2024, and issued its mandate on April 9, 2024.

Requests and rulings

Luckett asked the court to lift the stay and reopen the case, and also asked to supplement the petition with additional arguments. Because the related appeal had ended, the court granted the request to lift the stay and reopen the action and directed the clerk to do so.

The court denied the request to supplement the petition because Luckett could not amend or supplement it piecemeal through additional pleadings. The denial was without prejudice to filing an amended petition containing all claims and arguments he wished to present. The court cautioned that filing an amended petition generally waives claims and arguments omitted from the earlier versions. The operative petition remained the petition at Docket No. 1 unless Luckett filed an amended petition.

The court also directed the clerk to substitute Raul Morales, identified as the current warden of Valley State Prison, for the previously named respondent because Morales was Luckett’s current custodian.

Next steps ordered by the court

The court ordered the respondent, within 91 days after the order issued, to file an answer explaining why the writ should not be granted on the claim previously found cognizable. The respondent could instead file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds within the same period. The court set additional deadlines for Luckett’s response to either filing and required the respondent to provide relevant previously transcribed portions of the state trial record.

The order did not decide whether Luckett was entitled to habeas relief on the remaining claim. It reopened the case and set the schedule for further briefing.