Stone v. Spearman
- William Orrick
- 3:19-cv-06762
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Stone v. Spearman, Judge Orrick administratively closed a mistakenly filed federal habeas action and sent the petition to California’s First Appellate District.
Alfred Durell Stone’s federal habeas action was administratively closed; the petition was directed to the First Appellate District of the California Court of Appeal, and M.E. Spearman was the named respondent.
What happened
In Stone v. Spearman, Alfred Durell Stone’s petition was sent to the federal court but appeared intended for California’s First Appellate District. The petition used a state habeas form, referred to that appellate district, and challenged a state court decision.
The court said the federal action had been opened by mistake. It directed the Clerk to cross out the federal case number and mail the petition to the First Appellate District of the California Court of Appeal.
Judge William H. Orrick administratively closed the action, ended all pending motions, and stated that no filing fee was due. He said Stone could file a federal petition later using the court’s form, but the federal court could not consider the claims until California courts had a fair opportunity to decide each one.
The detailed version
- Stone v. Spearman · No. 3:19-cv-06762
- William Orrick
- Dec. 6, 2019
Background
Alfred Durell Stone filed a petition that was received by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The court concluded that the federal action had been opened in error because the filing appeared intended for the First Appellate District of the California Court of Appeal. The court relied on the use of a state habeas form, the caption identifying the First Appellate District, the envelope’s addressee, and a copy of a 2019 state superior court denial of Stone’s state petition.
Court’s Action
The court ordered the Clerk to cross out the federal court’s case number and mail a copy of the petition to the First Appellate District of the California Court of Appeal. The court also stated that, if Stone wished to file a federal petition, he needed to use the federal court’s habeas petition form and clearly indicate that he wanted to proceed in federal court.
Ruling
Judge William H. Orrick warned that a federal habeas court could not adjudicate Stone’s claims until the state courts had a fair opportunity to rule on the merits of every claim Stone wished to raise federally. The court administratively closed the action, terminated all pending motions, and stated that no filing fee was due. Because the court did not decide the merits of Stone’s claims, this was a procedural order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.