Cisneros v. Robertson
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:18-cv-01877
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Cisneros v. Robertson, Judge Gilliam denied reconsideration of a habeas dismissal for failure to exhaust state remedies.
Petitioner Miguel A. Cisneros and respondent Jim Robertson; the case remains closed, although the court stated that Cisneros may return to federal court after exhausting his state remedies.
What happened
In Cisneros v. Robertson, Miguel A. Cisneros, a state prisoner representing himself, asked the court to reconsider its dismissal of his petition challenging his state custody. The court had dismissed the petition because he had not presented his claims to the California Supreme Court.
Cisneros argued that the court had made a clear mistake by refusing to let him file another amended petition and by overlooking evidence that he had exhausted his state remedies. The court said it had considered the submitted material, but that a decision from the San Mateo County Superior Court did not satisfy the requirement to present the claims to California’s highest state court.
The court denied reconsideration and left the earlier dismissal in place, while stating that Cisneros could return to federal court after exhausting his state remedies. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. ordered that the case remain closed.
The detailed version
- Cisneros v. Robertson · No. 4:18-cv-01877
- Haywood Gilliam
- Sept. 23, 2019
Background
Miguel A. Cisneros, a state prisoner incarcerated at Pelican Bay State Prison and proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 seeking federal review of his state-court claims. On September 5, 2019, the court dismissed the petition for failure to exhaust state remedies. The dismissal was without prejudice to Cisneros returning to federal court after presenting his claims to the California Supreme Court. The court also denied a certificate of appealability and entered judgment for respondent Jim Robertson.
Cisneros then filed a pleading that the court treated as a motion to reconsider the judgment under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. That rule permits a court to alter or amend a judgment in limited circumstances, such as newly discovered evidence, clear error, or an intervening change in controlling law.
Arguments and Analysis
Cisneros argued that the court had committed clear error by denying his request to amend his amended petition and by failing to consider evidence in his proposed second amended petition showing that he had exhausted his state remedies.
The court rejected that argument. It said the request to amend had properly been denied because the proposed amendment did not allege new claims. The court had instead treated the proposed second amended petition as a written response to the dismissal motion and had considered it. The court further concluded that the material submitted did not show exhaustion. Cisneros had submitted an April 15, 2019, denial of his state habeas petition by the San Mateo County Superior Court, but the court explained that exhaustion required presenting the federal claims to the highest available state court—the California Supreme Court—before seeking federal habeas relief.
Ruling and Disposition
The court held that it had not committed clear error by dismissing the action for failure to exhaust state remedies. It also rejected Cisneros’s argument that the dismissal caused a serious injustice, noting that he could refile after presenting his claims to the California Supreme Court.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. denied Cisneros’s Rule 59(e) motion for reconsideration of the dismissal without prejudice. The order terminated docket entry 59, and the case remained closed.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.