Cooper v. Neuschmid
- Jon Tigar
- 4:19-cv-05699
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Cooper v. Neuschmid, Judge Tigar dismissed one habeas claim, ordered a response on the others, and kept the case moving.
Derrick A. Cooper’s federal habeas petition was narrowed by dismissal of Claim 8, while Robert Neuschmid was required to respond to the remaining claims or file a procedural motion to dismiss.
What happened
Derrick A. Cooper, who was imprisoned after a California murder and gang-participation conviction, filed a federal petition claiming trial, prosecutorial, and lawyer errors, along with a Fourth Amendment claim.
The court dismissed Claim 8, which challenged the denial of Cooper’s motion to suppress evidence, because California gave him a full and fair opportunity to litigate that issue. The court said his remaining claims appeared eligible for federal review but did not decide whether they were valid.
Judge Jon S. Tigar ordered Robert Neuschmid to respond within 91 days and allowed Cooper to reply. The order also permitted Neuschmid to file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds instead of an answer.
The detailed version
- Cooper v. Neuschmid · No. 4:19-cv-05699
- Jon Tigar
- Oct. 1, 2019
Background
Derrick A. Cooper, an incarcerated person proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition for federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The petition challenged his 2014 Contra Costa County convictions for first-degree murder and participation in a criminal street gang, as well as related enhancements and his sentence of 50 years to life. The California Court of Appeal affirmed his conviction in 2017, with a later 2018 decision described as remanding the case for limited purposes. The California Supreme Court denied review in 2018, and denied Cooper’s state habeas petition on July 10, 2019.
Claims
Cooper raised nine claims. They concerned restrictions on impeaching or cross-examining witnesses, alleged prosecutorial misconduct, ineffective assistance of trial counsel, cumulative error, allegedly withheld exculpatory evidence, the denial of a motion to suppress evidence under California Penal Code § 1538.5, and allegedly inadmissible hearsay in gang-expert testimony.
Court’s analysis
The court held that Claim 8, Cooper’s Fourth Amendment challenge to the denial of his suppression motion, could not be considered in this federal habeas action. Under Stone v. Powell, federal habeas review of a state prisoner’s Fourth Amendment claim is barred when the state provided a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue. The court explained that California’s procedure under Penal Code § 1538.5 provides that opportunity and noted that Cooper acknowledged receiving a hearing under that provision. The court therefore dismissed Claim 8 for failure to state a claim for federal habeas relief.
The court did not decide the merits of the other claims. Instead, it stated that the remaining claims appeared eligible for review under § 2254 and required a response from the respondent.
Order and effect
Judge Jon S. Tigar ordered the clerk to serve the order and petition on Robert Neuschmid and the Attorney General of California. Neuschmid was ordered to file an answer within 91 days explaining why relief should not be granted on the claims the court found eligible for review, together with previously transcribed portions of the state trial record. Cooper could file a reply within 35 days after the answer. Neuschmid could instead file, within the same 91-day period, a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds. The order warned Cooper that failing to comply with court requirements could result in dismissal for failure to prosecute.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.