Lastorina-Snyder
- 3:25-cv-03732
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Lastorina-Snyder v. People of California, the court ordered a response to Mario Lastorina-Snyder’s custody petition and denied his hearing request; the judge was not identified.
Mario Lastorina-Snyder, the respondent identified for docket purposes as Santa Clara County Sheriff Bob Jonsen, and the California officials required to respond to the petition.
What happened
In Lastorina-Snyder v. People of California, Mario Lastorina-Snyder, who is detained at Elmwood Correctional Facility, filed a federal petition challenging his custody without a lawyer. He raised claims involving bail, a preliminary hearing, speedy trial rights, access to the courts, innocence, and an alleged assault by a correctional officer.
The court treated the petition as a challenge to pretrial detention under a federal law allowing courts to review custody before a final state-court judgment. Because the case was still ongoing and the petition did not clearly show that relief was unavailable, the court did not dismiss the claims at this stage. It said any civil-rights claim about excessive force by custodial officers must be brought in a separate lawsuit.
The court ordered the respondent to answer within 60 days or file a motion to dismiss, and allowed Mario Lastorina-Snyder 30 days to respond to an answer or motion. It denied his request to proceed without paying the filing fee as moot because he had paid the fee, and denied his hearing request as unnecessary without prejudice. The judge was not identified in the order.
The detailed version
- Lastorina-Snyder · No. 3:25-cv-03732
- July 7, 2025
Background
Mario Lastorina-Snyder filed a petition asking for federal review of his custody, along with several amended petitions. The court considered the most recent amended petition during its initial screening. The opinion states that he was detained at Elmwood Correctional Facility in Santa Clara County and had filed the case without a lawyer.
The petition suggests that he had a jury trial in Santa Clara County and was serving a sentence for a resulting conviction, but it also stated that his sentence was pending. He said a state habeas petition was pending in the Santa Clara County Superior Court. His allegations included due-process violations, actual innocence, legal innocence, unlawful ongoing incarceration, denial of bail, failure to receive a preliminary examination, denial of a speedy-trial motion, denial of access to the courts, and an alleged incident in which a correctional officer threw him to the ground, removed his pants, and inserted a firm object into his rear end after he demanded to appear before a magistrate. He requested dismissal of his charges.
Court’s Analysis
The court concluded that Mario Lastorina-Snyder appeared to be a pretrial detainee. It therefore treated the petition as arising under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a federal law that allows a court to review whether a person is being held in violation of the Constitution or federal law, rather than under § 2254, which generally applies to custody resulting from a final state-court judgment.
The court said the actual-innocence claim was appropriate because the state criminal proceeding was ongoing and the state did not appear to have decided his guilt or innocence. It also found that summary dismissal of his other claims was unwarranted at that time because it was not clear from the petition that he was not entitled to relief. The court did not decide whether any of the claims ultimately had merit.
The court further stated that claims alleging excessive force or other civil-rights violations by custodial officers must be brought in a separate action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal civil-rights statute for claims against state officials. The order did not decide such a separate claim.
Orders
The clerk was directed to serve the order and petition on the California Attorney General, the respondent, and Mario Lastorina-Snyder. The respondent must, within 60 days, file an answer explaining why the requested writ should not issue, together with relevant portions of the state record. The respondent may instead file a motion to dismiss within that period. Mario Lastorina-Snyder may respond to an answer within 30 days of receiving it, or respond to a motion to dismiss under the schedule stated in the order.
The court denied the motion to proceed without paying the filing fee as moot because Mario Lastorina-Snyder had paid the $5 filing fee. It denied his motion for a hearing as unnecessary, without prejudice to the court ordering a hearing later if one becomes warranted. The clerk was directed to update the docket to identify the petition as arising under § 2241 and to identify the respondent as Santa Clara County Sheriff Bob Jonsen. The order terminated Docket Nos. 9 and 14. The judge’s name does not appear in the provided text.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.