Brown v. SF Sheriff's Dept.
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:19-cv-04399
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Aaron Brown v. Dept. 15, Judge Gilliam dismissed Brown’s federal petition for failing to state a cognizable federal habeas claim.
Aaron Brown’s federal petition was dismissed. The order entered judgment in favor of Dept. 15, et al., denied pending motions as moot, and closed the case.
What happened
In Aaron Brown v. Dept. 15, Aaron Brown filed a federal petition challenging state-court rulings from May and June 2019. Those rulings denied his request for a new lawyer and found him unable to stand trial.
Brown claimed that the rulings violated his right to effective legal representation and protection against being tried twice for the same offense. He also claimed the rulings were retaliation for using the courts.
Judge Gilliam ruled that the petition challenged rulings made during the state trial, not the conviction or judgment causing Brown’s custody, so they were not claims that federal custody law allowed this court to review. The court dismissed the petition, granted permission to proceed without paying filing fees, denied a certificate of appealability, and denied pending motions as moot.
The detailed version
- Brown v. SF Sheriff's Dept. · No. 4:19-cv-04399
- Haywood Gilliam
- Sept. 27, 2019
Background
Aaron Brown, representing himself, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 seeking federal habeas relief. A habeas petition is a request to challenge unlawful custody. Brown 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’s Claims
Brown alleged that the state-court decisions violated his right to effective assistance of counsel and his protection against double jeopardy. He also alleged that the unfavorable decisions were retaliation for his access to the courts.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that § 2254 permits a federal court to review custody imposed under a state-court judgment when the custody violates the federal Constitution, federal law, or federal treaties. Brown’s petition challenged a competency finding made during the state trial, rather than the conviction or judgment that resulted in his custody. The court therefore concluded that it could not review the challenged rulings in this petition.
The court stated that, if Brown was being held under a conviction that violated federal law or the Constitution, he could file a § 2254 petition challenging that conviction and related custody after the conviction became final and after he exhausted available state remedies. The court did not decide the merits of Brown’s constitutional claims.
Disposition
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. dismissed the petition for failure to state a cognizable claim for federal habeas relief. The court granted Brown’s requests for permission to proceed without paying filing fees, denied a certificate of appealability, and 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.