Valadez v. Frauenheim
- Beth Freeman
- 5:19-cv-06649
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Valadez v. Frauenheim, Judge Freeman dismissed one habeas claim but allowed two others to proceed.
Michael Max Valadez’s federal challenge to his state conviction: the court dismissed his third claim, while claims concerning confrontation rights and the gang enhancement remained pending for further briefing. Respondent Scott Frauenheim was ordered to respond.
What happened
In Valadez v. Frauenheim, Michael Max Valadez, a California prisoner representing himself, challenged his state conviction. He claimed that evidence violated his confrontation rights, that insufficient evidence supported a gang enhancement, and that the state appellate court violated due process.
The court dismissed the third claim for failure to state a claim because it concerned state-law procedures and could not support federal relief. The court found that the first two claims could proceed and required the warden to respond.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman ordered the warden to file an answer within 90 days, while allowing a procedural dismissal motion instead. Valadez could file a response to either filing, and the court warned that failing to prosecute the case could lead to dismissal.
The detailed version
- Valadez v. Frauenheim · No. 5:19-cv-06649
- Beth Freeman
- May 5, 2020
Background
Michael Max Valadez, a California prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his conviction in Alameda County Superior Court. The court had asked Respondent Scott Frauenheim, identified as the warden, to address whether the petition was filed too late. Respondent notified the court that a motion to dismiss on timeliness grounds appeared unwarranted, so the case proceeded to the next stage.
Claims
Valadez raised three grounds for relief:
- He argued that admitting the victim’s preliminary-hearing testimony and his statements to police violated the Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses.
- He argued that insufficient evidence supported the gang enhancement.
- He argued that the state appellate court denied him a federally protected procedural due-process safeguard when addressing his claims.
Court’s analysis and ruling
The court concluded that the first and second claims were legally cognizable under § 2254 and required a response from Respondent. The court did not decide whether those claims ultimately have merit.
The court dismissed the third claim for failure to state a cognizable claim. It explained that the relief granted by the California Supreme Court was based on state law and that a petitioner cannot turn a state-law issue into a federal claim merely by asserting a due-process violation. The court also stated that federal relief is unavailable for alleged errors in state post-conviction review or violations of the state constitution.
Orders and next steps
The court ordered Respondent to file and serve an answer within 90 days, together with relevant portions of the previously transcribed state trial record. Valadez may file a written response within 30 days after receiving the answer. Alternatively, Respondent may file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds instead of an answer; Valadez would then have 28 days to respond, and Respondent would have 14 days to reply.
The court reminded Valadez that he is responsible for prosecuting the case, serving court communications on Respondent’s counsel, reporting any address change, and complying with court orders. It warned that failure to do so may result in dismissal for failure to prosecute. Judge Beth Labson Freeman signed the order on May 5, 2020.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.