Khan v. Pollard
- William Alsup
- 3:19-cv-08349
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Khan v. Pollard, Judge Alsup ordered a response to Khan’s conviction challenge and denied permission to proceed without fees because Khan paid the filing fee.
Mohammed Z. Khan, M. Pollard, and the Attorney General of California as respondent's attorney.
What happened
Mohammed Z. Khan filed a self-represented federal petition challenging his California state-court convictions for first-degree murder and attempted voluntary manslaughter.
Khan claimed that the evidence did not support his convictions and that the trial court gave an improper jury instruction. The court found these claims sufficient to require a response, but it did not decide whether Khan should receive relief.
Judge William Alsup ordered M. Pollard to show why the petition should not be granted and allowed the respondent to file an answer or a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds. The judge denied Khan’s request to proceed without paying fees because Khan had already paid the filing fee.
The detailed version
- Khan v. Pollard · No. 3:19-cv-08349
- William Alsup
- Jan. 24, 2020
Background
Mohammed Z. Khan, appearing without a lawyer, filed a federal petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his state-court conviction. The opinion states that Khan was convicted in Alameda County Superior Court in 2016 of first-degree murder and attempted voluntary manslaughter and received a sentence of 32 years to life in state prison. The California Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, and the California Supreme Court denied review.
Claims and screening
The court explained that a federal petition challenging state custody must identify the constitutional or federal-law violation and provide facts supporting each claim. Khan alleged that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction for attempted involuntary manslaughter, insufficient evidence to support his first-degree murder conviction, and that the trial court improperly instructed the jury under CALCRIM No. 540. The opinion's earlier description of Khan's conviction refers to attempted voluntary manslaughter, while its description of one claim refers to attempted involuntary manslaughter.
The court concluded that, when read liberally, Khan's claims warranted a response. It did not decide the merits of those claims or rule that Khan was entitled to habeas relief.
Order
The court ordered the clerk to send the order and petition to M. Pollard and to the Attorney General of California as the respondent's attorney. Respondent was ordered to file an answer within 63 days showing why the petition should not be granted. Respondent could instead file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds within that period. Khan was given 28 days to respond to an answer or motion, and respondent would have 14 days to reply to an opposition to a motion to dismiss.
The court denied Khan's application for leave to proceed without paying the filing fee because he had already paid that fee. Judge William Alsup also reminded Khan to serve court filings on respondent'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.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.