Blake v. Ndoh
- William Orrick
- 3:19-cv-06227
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Blake v. Ndoh, Judge Orrick allowed Blake’s federal habeas claims to proceed and ordered a response without deciding their merits.
Gordon Blake, whose federal challenge to his state conviction was allowed to proceed past initial screening, and Rosemary Ndoh, who was ordered to respond.
What happened
In Blake v. Ndoh, Gordon Blake challenged his 2014 state conviction and 194-years-to-life sentence for multiple counts involving four minor victims. His efforts to overturn the conviction in state court were unsuccessful.
Blake alleged that pre-accusation delay violated due process, that the charging document and one victim’s inconsistent accounts denied him adequate notice, and that appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance. The court found that, when read broadly, these allegations stated claims that could warrant relief.
Judge Orrick ruled that summary dismissal was not warranted. He ordered Rosemary Ndoh to file an answer or a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds within 60 days, but he did not decide whether Blake was entitled to relief.
The detailed version
- Blake v. Ndoh · No. 3:19-cv-06227
- William Orrick
- Mar. 6, 2020
Background
Gordon Blake filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 seeking federal review of his state conviction and sentence. According to the petition, the Contra Costa County Superior Court convicted Blake in 2014 of multiple counts of lewd and lascivious conduct involving four minor victims and sentenced him to 194 years to life. The opinion states that Blake’s efforts to overturn the conviction in state court were unsuccessful.
Claims
Blake alleged three grounds for relief: (1) pre-accusation delay violated due process because it allowed the original statute of limitations to expire on counts involving three victims; (2) he was denied due process and adequate notice because the charging document was vague and the fourth victim gave inconsistent accounts; and (3) appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance, as described in the petition.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that a federal court may grant relief under Section 2254 only when a person is held under a state-court judgment in violation of the Constitution, federal law, or a treaty. It also explained that summary dismissal at the initial screening stage is appropriate only when the petition’s allegations are vague or conclusory, plainly incredible, or clearly frivolous or false.
The court liberally construed Blake’s allegations and concluded that they stated claims for relief. It therefore determined that summary dismissal was not warranted. This order did not decide whether any of Blake’s claims ultimately has merit.
Disposition and next steps
The court ordered the Clerk to mail the order, petition, and attachments to the respondent and the respondent’s counsel, the California Attorney General. Within 60 days, the respondent must file an answer complying with Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, show cause why relief should not be granted, and provide relevant transcribed portions of the state trial record. Alternatively, the respondent may file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds within that 60-day period. Blake may respond within 30 days after an answer or motion is filed, as applicable. The court also stated that extensions may be granted for good cause when timely requested.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.