Randolph v. Schultz

Background

Robert Randolph, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 seeking federal review of his state-court custody. The case had previously been dismissed because Randolph had not paid the filing fee or submitted a complete application to proceed without paying it. After Randolph paid the fee, the court reopened the case.

The opinion states that a jury found Randolph guilty of two counts of first-degree murder, one count of attempted murder, and several special circumstances and sentencing enhancements. He received life sentences for the murders and a sentence of 82 years to life for the attempted murder and enhancements. The California Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction, the California Supreme Court denied review, and a habeas petition filed in the Sonoma County Superior Court was denied.

Claims and Exhaustion

Randolph identified eight grounds for federal relief: an illegal sentence, actual innocence, ineffective assistance of counsel, prosecutorial misconduct, admission of false evidence, judicial misconduct, denial of the ability to present a complete defense, and cumulative error. The court noted that the California Court of Appeal had addressed only an allegedly improper jury instruction involving an in-custody witness and cumulative prejudice. The opinion said it was unclear which claims Randolph had presented to the California Supreme Court, and Randolph indicated that his only state habeas petition had been filed in the superior court.

Before seeking federal review of the fact or length of confinement, a prisoner generally must present each claim to the state’s highest court. The court therefore concluded that the petition could not proceed as filed because the exhaustion of Randolph’s claims was unclear. The court discussed a possible stay while state remedies are pursued, explaining that such a stay is available only in limited circumstances, including when the claims may have merit and the petitioner has not intentionally delayed the litigation.

Disposition

The court requested that the Clerk reopen the case and dismissed the petition with leave to amend. Randolph must file an amended petition identifying which claims were presented to the California Supreme Court. If he wants to pursue further state remedies, he may instead file a motion for a stay addressing the required factors. Either filing must be made within 28 days of the order. The court also stated that failure to file an amended petition or motion for a stay may result in dismissal, and that failure to comply with court orders or keep the court informed of an address change may result in dismissal for failure to prosecute.