Alexander v. Borla

Background

Steven E. Alexander filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, which allows a person held under a state-court judgment to seek federal habeas relief. He claims that he has served his California sentence and is entitled to release.

In 2012, a Los Angeles Superior Court jury convicted Alexander of first-degree burglary with a person present, battery on a peace officer with injury, resisting an executive officer, and second-degree burglary. Alexander admitted at sentencing that he had a prior first-degree burglary conviction, and the court imposed a sentence of 25 years and 4 months.

In 2023, a trial court reduced one count to a misdemeanor and struck the prison priors, but left in place an upper-term sentence originally imposed on a first-degree burglary count. Alexander argued in the state appeal that the trial court improperly reimposed the upper term because the middle term is presumptively required unless aggravating factors have been found true by a jury or admitted by the defendant. The state appellate court rejected those arguments but remanded for recalculation of Alexander’s actual and conduct credits.

Initial Habeas Review

The court reviewed the petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2243 and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. The court stated that summary dismissal is appropriate only when a petition’s allegations are vague or conclusory, plainly incredible, or obviously frivolous or false. Construing Alexander’s claim broadly, the court found that his assertion that he had served his sentence and should be released stated a cognizable due-process claim. The court therefore ordered a response rather than dismissing the petition at this stage.

Because Alexander challenges the execution of his sentence, the court stated that the Northern District of California is the preferred forum even though the conviction occurred in Los Angeles County. The respondent may request transfer to the Central District of California within 60 days of the order.

Respondent and Case Classification

The court directed the Clerk to enter Edward Borla as the sole respondent. The court identified Borla as the warden of the prison where Alexander is housed and as the custodian with day-to-day control over Alexander. The Clerk was also directed to change the cause of action to a state habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and the nature of suit to general habeas corpus.

Motions

Alexander moved for appointment of counsel. The court explained that there is no automatic right to counsel in a habeas action, although the court may appoint counsel when the interests of justice require it and the petitioner cannot afford representation. The court found that Alexander had not shown exceptional circumstances: he had explained his claims clearly, and the issues were not complex. The court stated that it could later consider on its own whether appointment of counsel is warranted after the record is more fully developed. The motion for appointment of counsel was denied.

Alexander also moved for summary judgment. The court denied that motion as unnecessary, explaining that the order to show cause already requires the respondent to respond and that summary judgment is not an appropriate vehicle under these circumstances in a habeas proceeding.

Order

The court ordered the respondent to file an answer complying with Rule 5 by March 2, 2026, or to file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds by that date. If an answer is filed, Alexander may respond within 30 days after it is filed. If a motion to dismiss is filed, Alexander may oppose it within 30 days, and the respondent may reply within 15 days after the opposition.

The order also requires service of the order and relevant state-court records, reminds Alexander of his filing and address-update responsibilities, and warns that failure to prosecute could result in dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The court denied Alexander’s motion for counsel and motion for summary judgment and directed the Clerk to terminate all pending motions. The court did not decide the merits of Alexander’s claim that he has completed his sentence and must be released.