Nilsen v. Howe
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:19-cv-02917
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
Nilsen v. Lake County Superior Court: Judge Hamilton dismissed two habeas claims but ordered a response on speedy-trial and trial-judge-recusal claims.
Michael David Nilsen and the Lake County Superior Court, Appellate Department; the order also required the Lake County Probation Department, identified as respondent’s attorney, to respond.
What happened
Michael David Nilsen, a California probationer representing himself, filed a federal petition challenging his driving-under-the-influence conviction and sentence. He claimed that his arrest followed an unauthorized traffic stop, the state court lacked jurisdiction, his speedy-trial rights were violated, and the trial judge should have recused himself.
The court dismissed the claims about the traffic stop and state-court jurisdiction because they did not present a federal habeas claim. It allowed the speedy-trial and trial-judge-recusal claims to continue and ordered the respondent to answer them. Any challenge to the appellate court’s refusal to consider the recusal motion was dismissed as untimely.
Judge Hamilton issued an order requiring the respondent to show why the writ should not be granted. The order did not decide whether the remaining claims ultimately have merit.
The detailed version
- Nilsen v. Howe · No. 4:19-cv-02917
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Nov. 18, 2019
Background
Michael David Nilsen, a California probationer proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the federal statute allowing a person in state custody to challenge custody that violates federal law. After an earlier amended petition was dismissed with permission to amend, Nilsen filed a second amended petition.
Nilsen stated that he was found guilty of driving under the influence and sentenced to 20 days in jail, nine months of driving-under-the-influence school, 116 hours of community service, and three years of probation. He also stated that the California Court of Appeal and California Supreme Court denied his appeals.
Claims and analysis
The court read the second amended petition as raising four claims: (1) false arrest based on an unauthorized traffic stop; (2) the trial court lacked jurisdiction because the accusatory pleading was void; (3) violation of speedy-trial rights; and (4) error by the trial judge in failing to recuse himself.
The court dismissed the first claim. It explained that federal habeas review generally cannot reconsider Fourth Amendment claims, such as an allegedly unlawful stop or arrest, when the state provided a full and fair opportunity to litigate them. The court stated that California procedure provides that opportunity. It also explained that an alleged violation of state law does not by itself support federal habeas relief.
The court dismissed the second claim because Nilsen relied on state law and procedure concerning the time between his arrest and the filing of charges. The court concluded that this did not state a federal claim.
The court found that the third and fourth claims were sufficient to require a response. The order separately stated that any portion of the fourth claim challenging the appellate court’s denial of Nilsen’s motion to recuse the trial judge was dismissed because the appellate court had treated that motion as untimely. The order therefore allowed the case to continue only as to the speedy-trial claim and the remaining trial-judge-recusal claim.
Order
The court dismissed the first two claims. It ordered the respondent to file an answer within 56 days explaining why the writ should not be granted and to provide relevant portions of the transcribed state trial record. Nilsen could file a response within 28 days after receiving the answer. The respondent could instead file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds, subject to the deadlines stated in the order.
This was not a final decision on the merits of the speedy-trial or remaining trial-judge-recusal claims. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton directed the respondent to show cause and continued the petition as to those claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.