Brown v. SF Sheriff's Dept.
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:19-cv-04399
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Brown v. Dept. 15, Judge Gilliam dismissed Brown’s habeas petition as not cognizable, granted fee-waiver status, denied other pending motions as moot, and denied appeal certification.
Aaron Brown’s federal challenge to the state-court competency and lawyer-related rulings was dismissed; the respondent received judgment, while Brown was allowed to proceed without paying filing fees.
What happened
In Brown v. Dept. 15, Aaron Brown filed a petition asking a federal court to review state-court rulings that denied his request for a new lawyer and found him unable to stand trial. He alleged violations involving legal representation, double jeopardy, and retaliation for using the courts.
The court said the petition challenged a competency ruling made during the state trial rather than the conviction or judgment causing Brown’s custody. Because of that, the court dismissed the petition for failing to present a claim that federal habeas relief could address. The court also said Brown could file a later petition challenging a final conviction and related custody after completing required state remedies.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. granted Brown permission to proceed without paying filing fees, denied a certificate of appealability, denied all pending motions as moot, entered judgment for the respondent, and closed the case.
The detailed version
- Brown v. SF Sheriff's Dept. · No. 4:19-cv-04399
- Haywood Gilliam
- Sept. 27, 2019
Background
Aaron Brown filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 while proceeding without a lawyer. He challenged state-court decisions from May and June 2019 that denied his request for a different lawyer and found him incompetent to stand trial under California Penal Code § 1370. Brown alleged violations of his right to effective assistance of counsel and protection against double jeopardy. He also alleged that the unfavorable state-court rulings were retaliation for his access to the courts.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is available to review whether a state prisoner’s custody under a state-court judgment violates the federal Constitution, federal law, or a federal treaty. The court determined that Brown’s petition challenged a competency finding made during the state trial, not the conviction or judgment that resulted in his custody. The court therefore concluded that it could not review the challenged state-court rulings through this petition.
The court stated that, if Brown believed his conviction violated federal law or the Constitution, he could file a § 2254 petition challenging the conviction and related custody after the conviction became final and after he exhausted available state remedies. The court dismissed the petition for failure to state a cognizable claim for federal habeas relief.
Rulings
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. granted Brown’s requests for permission to proceed without paying filing fees. The court denied a certificate of appealability because Brown had not made the required substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied. The court directed the clerk to enter judgment for the respondent, deny all pending motions as moot, and close the file.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.