Williams v. Harris
- Edward Chen
- 3:14-cv-00101
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 7
In Willie Williams v. Davey, Judge Chen dismissed one habeas claim as procedurally barred and set briefing for four remaining claims.
Willie Williams’s Claim 1 was dismissed from the federal case. His four remaining claims were left for further briefing, while the respondent was ordered to file an answer.
What happened
In Willie Williams v. Davey, Willie Williams challenged his 2010 murder conviction in a federal petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The dispute concerned one claim that his trial lawyer was ineffective for failing to question witnesses and request a voluntary-intoxication instruction.
The court dismissed that claim because the California Supreme Court had rejected it as untimely under a state procedural rule. The court found that Williams had not shown a sufficient reason for the delay, actual harm, or a fundamental injustice that would allow federal review. Four other claims remain, and the court set deadlines for the respondent’s answer and Williams’s response.
Judge Chen issued the order on November 4, 2019. The court also ruled that it would not issue a certificate allowing an appeal of the procedural ruling.
The detailed version
- Williams v. Harris · No. 3:14-cv-00101
- Edward Chen
- Nov. 4, 2019
Background
Willie Williams filed a federal petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his 2010 Alameda County Superior Court conviction for first-degree murder with a special circumstance involving murder during a robbery. He was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. After his direct appeal ended, Williams filed several state petitions seeking review.
The California Supreme Court denied his August 24, 2018 petition on February 27, 2019, citing In re Robbins, including its discussion of untimely claims. Williams then returned to federal court and filed a second amended petition. After certain new ineffective-assistance claims were previously dismissed for failure to state a claim eligible for federal review, five claims remained.
Claim 1 and Procedural Default
The respondent asked the court to dismiss Claim 1 as procedurally defaulted. Claim 1 alleged that Williams’s trial lawyer was ineffective by failing to contact witnesses about their contact with someone named Mr. Campbell and by failing to request a voluntary-intoxication instruction concerning the special-circumstance allegation.
The court explained that federal review is barred when a state court rejects a federal claim based on a state procedural rule that is independent of federal law and firmly established and regularly followed. The court concluded that the California Supreme Court’s citation to Robbins meant that Williams’s 2018 state petition was denied as untimely. It further concluded that California’s timeliness rule is an independent and adequate state procedural ground, so Claim 1 was procedurally defaulted.
A procedurally defaulted claim may still be reviewed if the petitioner shows a sufficient external reason for the default and actual harm, or shows that refusing review would cause a fundamental miscarriage of justice. The court found that Williams had not made either showing. It rejected his argument that delays by the state courts caused his late filing, noting the timing described in the order. The court also concluded that an exception for ineffective assistance during an initial state collateral proceeding did not apply because Williams’s default occurred in a later state proceeding and he had not identified authority extending that exception to an untimeliness ruling.
Disposition
The court dismissed Claim 1 from the action as procedurally defaulted. The order does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice. The court set a briefing schedule for the four remaining claims: the respondent’s answer was due December 13, 2019, and Williams’s response, if any, was due January 10, 2020. The court also ruled that a certificate of appealability would not issue.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.