Harris v. People of the State of California

Background

James L. Harris, also known as Smiley J. Harris, filed the action without a lawyer under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the federal statute allowing a person in state custody to seek review of a conviction on the ground that it violates the U.S. Constitution or federal law. He challenged a 2019 conviction from the Lake County Superior Court for violating California Vehicle Code § 14601.2(a) with prior offenses. The opinion states that he received a one-year sentence on March 28, 2019. Harris said he had unsuccessfully appealed and filed unsuccessful state-court petitions before bringing this federal action.

The court reviewed the petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2243 and Rule 4, which permit early dismissal when the petition shows that the applicant is not entitled to relief.

Claims

Harris asserted two claims. First, he argued that the judgment was void because the state court allegedly lacked subject-matter and personal jurisdiction over him. He relied on his surrender of a driver’s license, documents and declarations concerning his allegiance and citizenship, a revocation of authority related to his Social Security number, the denial of motions in the state case, and the state court’s entry of a not-guilty plea when he said he entered no plea.

Second, Harris argued that his conviction was barred by claim preclusion, also called res judicata, based on his 2005 acquittal on a charge of driving without a license. He argued that the earlier acquittal prevented later claims that he was the person identified in the Vehicle Code. The opinion states that he had raised this argument unsuccessfully in the state court.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that the petition did not assert a violation of the Constitution, federal law, or a treaty, as required for federal review under § 2254. To the extent Harris was alleging violations of California law, the court said those claims could not be considered in a federal habeas petition. The court also found that the petition’s theories were nonsensical and were not made coherent by its citations to numerous cases.

The court therefore determined that the petition was legally frivolous—that is, based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or lacking any factual basis. The court did not decide the underlying validity of Harris’s conviction.

Disposition

Judge Susan Illston ordered that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus be dismissed with leave to amend. Harris could file an amended petition attempting to state claims based on the Constitution, federal law, or a treaty, but the amended petition had to provide a coherent factual statement showing how his rights were violated and identify the proper respondent—the state officer who had custody of him. The deadline was October 25, 2019; the order stated that failing to file by then would result in dismissal of the action.

The court also granted Harris’s application to proceed without paying filing fees.