Murray v. Lozano
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:20-cv-00471
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Murray v. Lozano, Judge Gilliam granted fee-free status and ordered a response to Murray’s federal prison-conviction challenges without deciding their merits.
Rickey Paul Murray and respondent J. Lozano. Murray may proceed without prepaying the filing fee, and the respondent must answer the petition or file a procedural motion within the ordered time.
What happened
Murray v. Lozano involves Rickey Paul Murray, a state prisoner challenging a Monterey County conviction and sentence of 15 years and 8 months in prison through a federal petition.
Murray alleged ineffective assistance by his trial lawyer, an improper jury instruction about mutual combat, and double jeopardy violations involving two possession-for-sale convictions. The court found that these claims could be considered under federal law and required a response, but did not decide whether Murray should win.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. granted Murray permission to proceed without prepaying the filing fee and issued an order requiring the respondent to answer within 60 days or file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds.
The detailed version
- Murray v. Lozano · No. 4:20-cv-00471
- Haywood Gilliam
- Apr. 29, 2020
Background
Rickey Paul Murray, a state prisoner at California Medical Facility, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 seeking federal review of a Monterey County Superior Court conviction. The state jury convicted him in 2017 of multiple firearm, drug, assault, shooting, and firearm-discharge offenses. The trial court imposed a sentence of 15 years and 8 months. After an appeal, the state trial court corrected a custody-credit error, considered whether to strike a firearm enhancement, declined to strike it, and reinstated the sentence. The state appellate court later denied Murray’s appeal and a separate state petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Murray also reported that a petition remained pending in the California Supreme Court.
Claims
Murray raised three groups of claims: numerous allegations that his trial lawyer provided ineffective assistance; an allegation that the trial court improperly instructed the jury about mutual combat; and an allegation that the trial court violated the Double Jeopardy Clause by failing to stay two possession-for-sale convictions under California Penal Code § 654.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that it could review a state prisoner’s petition only if the prisoner alleged custody in violation of the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties. Applying the initial screening standard for a federal prisoner-conviction petition, the court concluded that Murray’s claims appeared legally cognizable and warranted a response from the respondent. The court did not resolve the factual or legal merits of any claim.
Ruling and next steps
The court granted Murray’s request to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning without prepaying the filing fee. It issued an order to show cause and directed the respondent to file an answer complying with the rules for § 2254 cases within 60 days, along with relevant portions of the previously transcribed state trial record. The respondent could instead file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds within that period. The order also set deadlines for Murray to respond if an answer or motion was filed. The court warned that failure to comply with court orders could result in dismissal for failure to prosecute. The order terminated the fee-related docket entry, Docket No. 3.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.