Taylor v. Jaime
- Susan Illston
- 3:19-cv-05664
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Taylor v. Jaime, Judge Illman denied counsel and ordered a response to Namon Taylor’s habeas petition without deciding its merits.
Namon Taylor and the respondent, George Jaime, whose counsel was directed to respond to the habeas petition.
What happened
In Taylor v. Jaime, Namon Taylor, a California prisoner, asked for federal review of his state conviction. He claimed that evidence about an uncharged crime affected the burden of proof, that trial counsel failed to investigate and challenge a car-trunk search, and that police illegally seized evidence.
The court found that, when read generously, these claims were sufficient to require a response. It denied Taylor’s request for appointed counsel and ordered the respondent to file an answer or a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds within 56 days.
Judge Robert M. Illman issued the October 10, 2019 order. The order did not decide whether Taylor was entitled to habeas relief; it set the next steps for the case and required Taylor to respond to any answer or motion.
The detailed version
- Taylor v. Jaime · No. 3:19-cv-05664
- Susan Illston
- Oct. 10, 2019
Background
Namon Taylor, identified in the order as a California prisoner, filed a petition seeking federal review of his state-court conviction under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The order states that Taylor was convicted in Alameda County of two robberies and possessing a firearm as a felon. He received a 15-year state-prison sentence. The state appellate court affirmed the judgment except that it sent the case back to the trial court to consider whether to impose a firearm-use enhancement. The California Supreme Court denied review, and Taylor’s state post-conviction petitions were denied.
The order states that venue was proper because the conviction occurred in Alameda County. Taylor paid the filing fee and consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge.
Claims
Taylor raised three grounds for federal habeas relief:
- He argued that evidence concerning an uncharged crime, presented to establish his identity, unconstitutionally reduced the prosecution’s burden of proof on the charged offense by allowing the jury to find that he committed the uncharged crime by a preponderance of the evidence.
- He argued that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to conduct a pretrial investigation, specifically by failing to challenge the search of Taylor’s car trunk.
- He argued that police illegally seized evidence.
The court concluded that, when liberally construed, these claims were sufficient to require a response. This was not a decision on whether any claim ultimately succeeds.
Appointment of Counsel
Taylor also asked the court to appoint a lawyer. The court explained that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not apply in federal habeas actions, but that federal law allows appointment when the interests of justice require it. The court found that appointment was not warranted at that time because the issues were not complex. The motion to appoint counsel was denied.
Order and Next Steps
The court ordered the respondent to serve and file an answer within 56 days after the order was issued, addressing why the requested writ should not be granted. The respondent also had to provide relevant portions of the previously transcribed state trial record. Instead of an answer, the respondent could file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds within the same 56-day period. Taylor could file a response within 28 days after receiving an answer or motion, and the respondent could file a reply within 14 days after receiving an opposition.
The order also required Taylor to serve the respondent’s counsel with copies of his court communications, keep the court informed of address changes, and comply with court orders. It warned that failure to do so could lead to dismissal for failure to prosecute.
Judge Robert M. Illman’s order began the response process; it did not resolve the merits of Taylor’s habeas claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.