Pimentel v. Mendocino County Probation
- Edward Davila
- 5:24-cv-04757
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Pimentel v. Mendocino County, Judge Davila ordered a response to Pimentel’s claim that trial counsel was ineffective.
Michael Patrick Pimentel and Mendocino County, the respondent; the order also directs the California Attorney General’s Office to respond on the respondent’s behalf.
What happened
Michael Patrick Pimentel, who is on probation and filed without a lawyer, asked a federal court to review his Mendocino County DUI convictions. He sought reversal of the state-court judgment.
Pimentel claimed that his trial attorney was ineffective by failing to object to false statements during the prosecutor’s closing argument and by failing to address those statements in the defense closing argument. The court found that this claim could be considered under the federal law governing challenges to state convictions and required a response.
Judge Edward J. Davila did not decide whether Pimentel should win or receive a new judgment. He ordered Mendocino County to explain within 90 days why the requested relief should not be granted; the respondent may instead file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds.
The detailed version
- Pimentel v. Mendocino County Probation · No. 5:24-cv-04757
- Edward Davila
- Nov. 19, 2024
Background
Michael Patrick Pimentel, who is on probation and represented himself, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the federal law allowing a person in state custody to challenge a state-court conviction on federal constitutional or legal grounds. He challenged his Mendocino County convictions for driving under the influence and driving with a blood alcohol content of 0.08 percent or more. He had been sentenced to three years of probation on August 11, 2021.
The appellate division of the Mendocino County Superior Court affirmed the convictions. The California Court of Appeal denied Pimentel’s request to transfer the case on November 14, 2023. Pimentel filed this federal action on August 7, 2024, seeking reversal of the judgment.
Claim and court’s analysis
Pimentel alleged ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland v. Washington. He claimed that his trial attorney failed to object to false statements made by the prosecution during closing argument and failed to challenge those statements during the defense closing argument.
The court concluded that, read liberally, this claim could be considered under § 2254 and required an answer from the respondent. The court did not decide whether the attorney was ineffective, whether the prosecution made false statements, or whether Pimentel was entitled to habeas relief.
Order
The court directed the Clerk to serve the order and petition on the respondent and the California Attorney General’s Office. It ordered the respondent to file and serve, within 90 days, an explanation showing why a writ of habeas corpus—a court order granting relief from an unlawful conviction or custody—should not issue. The respondent must also provide relevant portions of the previously transcribed state trial record.
The respondent may file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds instead of an answer. If an answer is filed, Pimentel may file a response within 30 days after receiving it. If a motion to dismiss is filed, Pimentel may respond within 28 days, and the respondent may reply within 14 days after receiving that response.
This order keeps the case moving; it is not a final decision on the petition’s merits. The order also reminded Pimentel that failing to comply with court orders or prosecute the case could lead to dismissal for failure to prosecute.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.