Nelson v. Robertson

Background

William Lloyd Nelson, an inmate at Pelican Bay State Prison, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his state conviction for attempted murder of a peace officer. He was convicted in Humboldt County Superior Court in 2014 and sentenced in 2015 to life with the possibility of parole plus a consecutive 20-year prison term. Nelson filed the petition without a lawyer.

The petition was 375 pages long, asserted 17 claims, and included approximately 1,600 pages of exhibits. The court described the filing as confusing because it contained extensive factual background, repeated introductions, excessive cross-references, unusual abbreviations, and exhibits marked with a confusing numbering system.

Court’s analysis

The court reviewed the petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2243 and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. A federal court may grant relief under § 2254 only when a state prisoner is held in violation of the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties. The court explained that a federal habeas case is not a second trial about guilt. Instead, the petition must identify specific federal violations and facts supporting each claim, within the limits governing federal review of state-court decisions.

The court found that the petition did not comply with the requirement that pleadings contain simple, concise, and direct allegations. It required Nelson to file an amended petition presenting a straightforward account of each claim, removing irrelevant facts and opinions, limiting cross-references, and avoiding unfamiliar abbreviations. The amended petition could not exceed 80 pages and had to be one-sided with no more than 28 lines of text per page.

The court also found that the petition did not identify particular federal errors. It instructed Nelson to identify, for every claim, the specific constitutional, statutory, or treaty provision allegedly violated and to provide coherent supporting facts. The court further stated that he should identify relevant clearly established federal law from the United States Supreme Court.

Regarding Nelson’s first claim, the court understood him to be attempting to assert a claim based on the suppression of evidence. The court stated that he had not shown a clearly established federal constitutional right to receive photocopies of discovery materials directly from the government when those materials had been provided to defense counsel. The court also rejected Nelson’s unsupported allegations that judges, prosecutors, defense counsel, and law-enforcement personnel had conspired against him, explaining that conspiracy allegations must be supported by material facts rather than conclusions.

Other motion and disposition

Nelson asked for extra time because he expected to be transferred to another prison, had been separated from legal papers needed for the case, and had difficulty accessing the law library and legal assistance. The court granted that request by taking the circumstances into account when setting an extended deadline.

The court dismissed the petition with leave to amend. Nelson had to file a complete amended petition by June 5, 2020, and failure to meet the deadline would result in dismissal of the action. The order did not decide whether Nelson ultimately was entitled to habeas relief on his conviction.