Noel v. Warden

Background

Patrick E. Noel, an inmate at Mendocino County Jail, filed this self-represented petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the federal statute allowing a state prisoner to challenge custody based on a violation of federal law. Although he used a form for a federal-prisoner sentence challenge under § 2255, the court treated the filing as a § 2254 petition because Noel was challenging a state-court judgment.

In 2005, a Mendocino County Superior Court jury convicted Noel of attempted murder, two counts of assault with a firearm, unlawful participation in a criminal street gang, endangering a child, two counts of kidnapping, and vehicle theft. The court imposed a 41-year sentence, including sentence enhancements. After state-court appeals and habeas petitions, Noel filed an earlier federal habeas petition. The Ninth Circuit later granted relief on his claim that the evidence was insufficient to support the gang-participation conviction. Noel was resentenced on January 28, 2016, to a total term of 39 years.

After resentencing, Noel again sought relief in the state courts. Those petitions were denied, including a summary denial by the California Supreme Court on November 14, 2018. He then filed this federal action.

Claims and screening

The court identified six claims. Noel alleged that the admission of gang evidence violated his due-process right to a fair trial; that prosecutors withheld material exculpatory or impeachment evidence concerning notes and an investigation involving Simmerson; that trial counsel was ineffective; that attorney Thompson was ineffective at the 2016 resentencing; that the state superior court made an unreasonable factual determination; and that admission of case-specific testimonial hearsay by a gang expert violated the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause.

The court concluded that all of these claims except the fifth, which was treated as argument supporting the first claim rather than as a separate constitutional claim, were legally capable of being considered in a federal habeas action and warranted a response. This was a preliminary screening decision, not a ruling on whether Noel’s claims were true or whether he was entitled to relief.

Successive-petition issue

The court ruled that Noel did not need permission from the court of appeals to file this petition as a second or successive petition. It reasoned that his resentencing produced an amended or new judgment after his earlier federal habeas case. Under the authorities cited by the court, a petition filed after that new judgment was not treated as a second or successive petition requiring prior authorization, even though many of Noel’s claims concerned the original 2005 trial.

The court noted that the state courts had cited several procedural bars. It stated that the respondent could address issues such as procedural default or exhaustion in a motion to dismiss before filing an answer.

Ruling and case status

The court issued an order to show cause. It ordered the respondent to answer by January 17, 2020, showing why a writ of habeas corpus should not issue, and to provide relevant portions of previously transcribed proceedings, including the 2005 trial transcript. Noel could file a response by February 14, 2020. The court also set deadlines if the respondent instead filed a motion to dismiss: Noel’s opposition was due February 14, 2020, and any reply was due February 28, 2020.

The court granted Noel’s application to proceed without paying court fees. It did not grant or deny habeas relief, dismiss the petition, or decide the merits of the claims.