Singh v. Robertson
- Yvonne Rogers
- 4:18-cv-07622
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Singh v. Robertson, Judge Rogers granted amendment, dismissed five unexhausted claims without prejudice, denied dismissal as moot, and ordered an answer on the rest.
Richard R. Singh’s federal challenge to his state conviction; five claims were dismissed without prejudice, while his remaining claims continued.
What happened
Richard R. Singh, a state prisoner representing himself, filed a federal petition challenging his state murder conviction and sentence. His petition raised eleven claims, but five had not been presented to the California Supreme Court.
Singh asked to amend his petition to remove those five claims. The court granted that request and dismissed the five claims without prejudice for failure to complete the required state-court process. It denied the respondent’s motion to dismiss as moot, meaning that motion no longer required a ruling after the claims were removed.
The court found that the remaining claims could proceed and ordered the respondent to file an answer. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers also set deadlines for any response and directed the clerk to docket Singh’s amended petition.
The detailed version
- Singh v. Robertson · No. 4:18-cv-07622
- Yvonne Rogers
- Nov. 20, 2019
Background
Richard R. Singh, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his state conviction. A jury found him guilty of two counts of first-degree murder with special circumstances and found firearm enhancements true. The state trial court sentenced him to life without the possibility of parole plus a consecutive term based on firearm enhancements. After state appellate proceedings and resentencing, Singh filed this federal petition containing eleven claims.
Motions and ruling
The respondent moved to dismiss five claims because Singh had not presented them to the California Supreme Court. Singh agreed that those five claims had not been exhausted and moved to amend his petition by deleting them. The court confirmed that the claims had not been presented to the state supreme court.
The court granted Singh’s motion for leave to delete the five unexhausted claims. It dismissed those five claims without prejudice for failure to exhaust state remedies, and designated the amended petition at Docket No. 19 as the operative pleading. The court denied the respondent’s motion to dismiss as moot. The order cautioned that deleting the claims could affect a later petition under the federal law governing successive habeas petitions.
Remaining claims and next steps
The court stated that the remaining claims were legally cognizable under § 2254 and did not appear meritless on the face of the amended petition. It ordered the respondent to file and serve an answer within 60 days, including relevant portions of the state-court record. Singh could file a response within 60 days after receiving the answer. The respondent could instead file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds within the same initial 60-day period. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers also directed the clerk to docket the amended petition and terminated Docket Nos. 9 and 16.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.