Collier v. Covello
- Jon Tigar
- 4:18-cv-06557
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Collier v. Covello, Judge Tigar allowed one habeas claim to proceed and ordered an answer without deciding whether relief was warranted.
Joe Robert Collier’s federal habeas case continues on Claim 2, while Patrick Covello must respond or file a procedural motion to dismiss.
What happened
In Collier v. Covello, Joe Robert Collier chose to continue with one claim in his petition challenging his imprisonment. That claim alleges that pretrial identification procedures were unfairly suggestive.
The court had previously dismissed the other claims for failure to complete state-court review, procedural default, or failure to state a valid federal habeas claim. The court found Claim 2 legally sufficient to continue and ordered Patrick Covello to respond.
Judge Tigar ordered an answer within 91 days, while allowing a procedural motion to dismiss instead. The order did not decide whether Collier is entitled to habeas relief.
The detailed version
- Collier v. Covello · No. 4:18-cv-06557
- Jon Tigar
- Dec. 5, 2019
Background
Joe Robert Collier, an inmate at Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility, filed this self-represented petition for federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The petition included ten claims.
In an earlier order, the court granted Patrick Covello’s motion to dismiss Claims 1 and 3 through 10. The court dismissed Claims 6, 7, and 10 because Collier had not completed the required state-court review. It dismissed Claims 1, 3, 4, 5, and 9 as procedurally defaulted, meaning the claims could not proceed because of a state procedural failure. It dismissed Claim 8 because it did not present a legally recognizable federal habeas claim.
The court gave Collier several options, including proceeding only with Claim 2, returning to state court to pursue certain claims, asking to pause the federal case while pursuing state remedies, or filing an amended petition. Collier chose to proceed with Claim 2, which alleges that pretrial identification procedures were unduly suggestive.
Ruling
The court concluded that, when read generously because Collier was self-represented, Claim 2 appeared legally sufficient under § 2254 and required a response from Covello. The court therefore ordered Covello to file and serve an answer within 91 days, together with relevant portions of the previously transcribed state trial record.
The court also allowed Covello to file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds instead of an answer within the same 91-day period. If an answer is filed, Collier may respond within 35 days. If a motion to dismiss is filed, Collier’s opposition or statement of non-opposition is due within 28 days, and Covello’s reply is due within 14 days after any opposition.
Effect of the Order
This was a case-management and screening order, not a decision on whether Collier should receive habeas relief. Judge Tigar also reminded Collier to serve court filings on Covello’s counsel, keep the court informed of address changes, and comply with court orders; failure to do so could lead to dismissal for failure to prosecute. The order stated that extensions may be granted for good cause if requested before the relevant deadline.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.