Robles v. McDowell
- Jon Tigar
- 4:23-cv-04405
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
Lomeli Gomez Robles v. Holbrook: Judge Tigar ordered a response to one habeas claim while other claims had been dismissed or were unexhausted.
Lomeli Gomez Robles and David Holbrook; the federal case proceeds only on Robles’s exhausted claim concerning the admission of expert testimony.
What happened
In Lomeli Gomez Robles v. David Holbrook, Lomeli Gomez Robles challenged a state-court conviction through a federal petition claiming errors involving evidence and expert testimony.
The court had dismissed two claims for lack of federal habeas jurisdiction and another as unexhausted. After Robles did not choose how to proceed with the unexhausted claim, the case continued only on the claim concerning expert testimony about Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome.
Judge Jon S. Tigar ordered David Holbrook to answer that claim within 91 days and provide relevant portions of the trial record. The order did not decide whether Robles is entitled to habeas relief.
The detailed version
- Robles v. McDowell · No. 4:23-cv-04405
- Jon Tigar
- Feb. 10, 2025
Background
Lomeli Gomez Robles, an inmate at Ironwood State Prison, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging a conviction from Santa Clara County Superior Court. The state appellate court affirmed the conviction, and the California Supreme Court denied review.
The petition originally asserted five claims: that the state court improperly admitted the victim’s police interview, expert testimony on Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome, Maria Medina’s condition examination transcript, and pictures of the victim at different ages, and that cumulative error occurred.
Earlier rulings and remaining claim
On September 4, 2024, the court granted the respondent’s motion to dismiss Claims 1 and 4 for lack of federal habeas jurisdiction. It dismissed Claim 3 as unexhausted, meaning the claim had not been presented through the required state-court review process.
The court gave Robles three choices: proceed on Claim 2, dismiss the federal action and return to state court to exhaust all claims, or seek a stay while exhausting Claim 3. The deadline passed without a communication from Robles. The court therefore ordered that the action proceed only on the exhausted claim, Claim 2, concerning the admission of expert testimony on Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome.
Order
The court found that Claim 2 was sufficient to warrant an answer from the respondent. It ordered the respondent to file and serve an answer within 91 days, following the applicable habeas-case rules, and to provide relevant portions of the previously transcribed trial record. Robles may file a reply within 35 days after the answer is filed.
The court also reminded Robles to serve court filings on the respondent’s counsel, keep the court informed of any address change, and comply with court orders. It stated that failure to do so could result in dismissal for failure to prosecute. The order did not decide the merits of Claim 2 or grant or deny habeas relief.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.