Haynes v. The People
- William Orrick
- 3:25-cv-03670
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Haynes v. Williams, Judge Orrick found the habeas claims cognizable and ordered a response, while noting possible untimeliness.
Damone Haynes, whose federal challenge to his state convictions will proceed to a response or possible procedural dismissal motion, and Sircoya M. Williams, who was designated as the sole respondent and ordered to respond.
What happened
In Haynes v. Williams, Damone Haynes asked the federal court to review his California convictions for murder, carjacking, and possessing a firearm as a felon. He raised claims that the evidence did not support his carjacking conviction and that his trial lawyer was ineffective.
The court found that Haynes’s amended petition stated claims that could be considered and ordered Sircoya M. Williams to file an answer or a motion addressing procedural issues by February 2, 2026. The court noted that the petition appeared to have been filed after the one-year federal deadline, but it did not decide whether the case was timely. Haynes may also amend his petition within 30 days if he intends to include two additional claims mentioned in a state-court filing.
Judge William H. Orrick ordered the clerk to list Williams, identified as the warden of the prison where Haynes is housed, as the sole respondent and to serve the order. The court did not grant or deny habeas relief; it directed the case to proceed to a response or possible dismissal motion.
The detailed version
- Haynes v. The People · No. 3:25-cv-03670
- William Orrick
- Sept. 23, 2025
Background
Damone Haynes filed a petition for federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, which allows a person held under a state-court judgment to challenge custody based on a violation of federal constitutional or statutory law. The petition concerns Haynes’s 2021 Alameda County Superior Court convictions for murder, carjacking, and possession of a firearm by a felon. The state court imposed a sentence of 50 years to life and found several firearm and great-bodily-injury sentencing enhancements true. The opinion states that Haynes’s efforts to overturn his convictions in state court were unsuccessful.
Claims and Initial Review
The court reviewed the amended petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2243 and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Haynes alleges that there was insufficient evidence to support his carjacking conviction, which he contends also affects his felony-murder conviction. He also alleges ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The court concluded that the amended petition states cognizable claims, meaning claims that may be considered in a federal habeas proceeding, rather than claims that could be summarily rejected at this stage.
The opinion notes that Haynes was convicted in 2021, that the state supreme court denied relief in 2023, and that he filed the federal petition in 2025. The court stated that this timing appears to exceed the one-year filing limit under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. It did not decide the timeliness issue. Instead, it stated that the respondent may file a motion to dismiss on that procedural ground.
The opinion also states that Haynes attached a state-court petition for review containing two claims not included in the federal petition. If he intends to include those claims, he must file another amended petition within 30 days of the order.
Order
The court issued an order to show cause rather than granting or denying habeas relief. By February 2, 2026, Sircoya M. Williams must file either an answer responding to the amended petition or a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds. If Williams files an answer, it must include relevant portions of the previously transcribed state trial record. Haynes may file a response within 30 days after an answer is filed. The court also set deadlines for responses if Williams files a motion to dismiss.
The clerk was directed to list Williams, identified in the opinion as the warden of the prison where Haynes is housed, as the sole respondent. The court explained that the proper respondent is the person who can produce Haynes’s body. The filing fee had been paid. Judge William H. Orrick warned that the action could later be dismissed for failure to prosecute if Haynes does not comply with court orders, but this order itself did not dismiss the case or decide the habeas claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.