Singleton v. Neuschmid
- William Orrick
- 3:19-cv-00428-WHO
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Terrence M. Singleton v. Jason Pickett, Judge Orrick dismissed unexhausted habeas claims without prejudice and ordered briefing on four surviving claims.
Terrence M. Singleton’s federal challenge to his state convictions: four exhausted insufficient-evidence claims continued, while his other claims were dismissed without prejudice. Jason Pickett was ordered to respond to the surviving claims.
What happened
In Terrence M. Singleton v. Jason Pickett, Singleton asked to continue challenging his state convictions in federal court only on claims he had already presented to the state courts.
The court identified claims involving insufficient evidence, jury-instruction errors, improperly admitted evidence, and cumulative error. Singleton agreed that some claims and parts of claims had not been exhausted through the state-court process.
The court granted both Singleton’s and Pickett’s motions to dismiss the unexhausted claims, dismissed those claims without prejudice, and allowed four insufficient-evidence claims to proceed. Judge Orrick ordered Pickett to answer those claims by October 26, 2020, followed by Singleton’s response.
The detailed version
- Singleton v. Neuschmid · No. 3:19-cv-00428-WHO
- William Orrick
- July 20, 2020
Background
Singleton sought federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 from his state convictions. Habeas relief is a request for a federal court to review whether a state conviction or custody violates federal law. The court had previously found cognizable claims—claims that could be considered in a habeas case—and ordered Jason Pickett to respond.
The order to show cause identified four general claims: insufficient evidence to support the convictions, instructional error, improper admission of evidence, and cumulative error. Pickett moved to dismiss claims and sub-claims that Singleton had not exhausted in state court. Singleton agreed that some claims were unexhausted and moved to dismiss them so that he could proceed with his exhausted claims.
Rulings
The court granted Singleton’s motion to dismiss his unexhausted claims and proceed only with his exhausted claims. It also granted Pickett’s motion to dismiss the unexhausted claims.
The following four claims were allowed to proceed:
- insufficient evidence of constructive possession of stolen property;
- insufficient evidence supporting the permissive-inference instruction;
- insufficient evidence of force or fear; and
- insufficient evidence of identity.
All other claims were dismissed without prejudice. The order did not decide the merits of the four surviving claims. Instead, Pickett was ordered to file an answer addressing their merits by October 26, 2020, and Singleton’s response was due within 30 days after the answer.
Warnings and Case Management
The court warned that a later petition challenging the same conviction—including one raising the dismissed claims—could be barred as a second or successive or abusive petition, and that permission from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit would be required for such a petition. The court also explained that Singleton could instead ask to stay the case while exhausting his claims in state court, or dismiss the petition, complete exhaustion, and return with an exhausted petition. If he chose a stay, he would need to show good cause for the lack of exhaustion and that the claims were potentially meritorious.
The court gave Singleton 30 days from the order to select one of those alternatives. If he filed nothing, the court would treat that as a decision to proceed with the four exhausted claims. The clerk was directed to terminate pending motions, reinstate Jason Pickett as respondent, and terminate Spearman as respondent. Judge William H. Orrick issued the order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.