Capanis v. Clark

Background

Matthew J. Capanis filed the action without a lawyer, seeking federal review of his state-court custody under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. According to the petition, a Contra Costa County Superior Court jury convicted him in 2017 of first-degree murder and active participation in a criminal street gang, and found sentence-enhancement allegations true. On May 26, 2017, the state court sentenced him to life in prison without the possibility of parole. The California Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction in 2018, and the California Supreme Court denied review in 2019.

Why the Petition Was Deficient

The court reviewed the petition under the rules governing federal petitions challenging state custody. The petition listed three claims. The opinion identifies allegations that the trial was unfair because the judge allegedly said Capanis could not claim self-defense if he did not testify, did not allow two defense witnesses to testify, and told the jury during closing arguments that there was no self-defense in a stated circumstance. The opinion also identifies a claim alleging that the prosecutor improperly introduced evidence about Capanis’s four prior weapons-related and violent offenses, along with expert-opinion evidence. The text provided does not clearly set out the second claim.

The court found two principal deficiencies. First, the claims did not identify a right under the federal Constitution, federal laws, or treaties that had been violated. Federal review of a state conviction is not available merely to correct an error under state law. Second, the petition contained almost no facts supporting each claim, so the court could not determine whether the state should be required to respond. The court instructed Capanis that an amended petition must identify the federal right involved in each claim and state the facts showing how that right was violated.

Ruling and Other Requests

The court dismissed the petition with leave to amend. Capanis was ordered to file an amended petition by December 27, 2019. The amended petition had to be a complete statement of his claims; any claim omitted from it would be treated as abandoned. The court warned that failure to file the amended petition would result in dismissal of the action.

The court also denied Capanis’s request for appointment of counsel. It concluded that appointing counsel was not required in this action, noting that Capanis reported that the claims had already been presented in his direct appeal, where he was represented by counsel. The court denied as unnecessary his request for an extension of time to file an application to proceed without paying the filing fee because he had paid the filing fee. Judge Susan Illston signed the order.