Fuller v. Matteson
- James Donato
- 3:20-cv-01878
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Fuller v. Matteson, Judge Donato granted Fuller’s motion to pause his federal challenge to his state conviction while he presents an unexhausted claim in state court and administratively closed the case.
Larry Darnell Fuller, whose federal challenge to his state conviction was stayed while he pursues an unexhausted claim in state court; Giselle Matteson, the respondent, and the federal case are also affected by the stay and administrative closure.
What happened
In Fuller v. Matteson, Larry Fuller, representing himself, filed a federal challenge to his California murder conviction and life-without-parole sentence. He raised claims about evidence of a prior crime and lawyers’ failure to challenge cellphone evidence allegedly obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
The court determined that the first claim appeared to have been presented to the state courts, but the second had not. Fuller asked the court to pause the federal case so he could present that claim to the California Supreme Court. The court found good cause for the delay, that the claim did not appear plainly meritless, and no intentional delay by Fuller.
Judge James Donato granted the motion to stay and stayed the case while Fuller pursues the unexhausted claim in state court. Fuller must pursue those proceedings diligently and notify the court within 30 days after state-court review ends or is refused. The clerk administratively closed the case, which the order said had no legal effect; the case may be reopened after Fuller provides the required notice.
The detailed version
- Fuller v. Matteson · No. 3:20-cv-01878
- James Donato
- May 11, 2020
Background
Larry Darnell Fuller, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his state-court custody. A jury convicted him of murder with the special circumstance that the victim was killed to prevent the victim’s testimony. He received a sentence of life without the possibility of parole. The California Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction, and the California Supreme Court denied review.
Fuller asserted two grounds for federal relief: that the trial court improperly admitted evidence of a prior crime to show motive, and that trial and appellate counsel were ineffective for failing to challenge cellphone evidence allegedly obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment. He also sought permission to proceed without paying filing costs, but the opinion states that he paid the filing fee.
Exhaustion and Stay
Before seeking federal habeas relief, a prisoner generally must exhaust available state-court remedies by presenting the federal claims to the state courts. The court stated that Fuller’s first claim appeared to be exhausted, while his second claim had not been exhausted.
Fuller requested a stay under Rhines v. Weber. A stay pauses the federal case while the petitioner pursues the unexhausted claim in state court. The court found that Fuller had shown good cause for not exhausting the claim before filing the federal petition, that the claim did not appear patently meritless, and that there was no indication that he had intentionally delayed the litigation.
Ruling
The court granted Fuller’s motion for a stay and stayed the case so he could present the unexhausted claim in state court. The stay required Fuller to pursue his state habeas proceedings diligently and to notify the federal court within 30 days after the state courts completed their review or refused to review the claim. The court stated that it could vacate the stay and act on the petition if either condition was not satisfied.
The clerk was directed to administratively close the case. The court expressly stated that the closure had no legal effect and was purely statistical. The case would be reopened and the stay vacated after Fuller gave the required notice. The court did not decide the merits of Fuller’s claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.