Brewer v. Warden
- William Orrick
- 3:20-cv-03975
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Brewer v. Warden, Judge Orrick dismissed Brewer’s repeat petition challenging his convictions, denied his incomplete fee application, and refused to issue an appeal certificate.
Kevin Dean Brewer’s repeat conviction-challenge petition was dismissed; Marcus Pollard remained the sole respondent, and the other named respondents were terminated from the case.
What happened
Brewer v. Warden concerned Kevin Dean Brewer’s repeat petition challenging his 2009 state convictions for sexual abuse and sexual assault of a child, for which he received a sentence of 61 years to life. He had challenged the same convictions in three earlier petitions; the first was denied on the merits, and the next two were dismissed as repeat filings.
The court said Brewer needed authorization from the appeals court before filing another petition about the same convictions. Because he had not shown that he received authorization, the court dismissed the petition. It also denied his application to proceed without paying fees because he did not provide the required forms and financial records, while stating that it would reconsider the application if he filed the proper documents.
Judge Orrick ruled that no certificate allowing an appeal would issue. The clerk was ordered to list Marcus Pollard as the only respondent, remove the other named respondents, enter judgment for the respondent, and close the case.
The detailed version
- Brewer v. Warden · No. 3:20-cv-03975
- William Orrick
- Aug. 10, 2020
Background
Kevin Dean Brewer, also identified in the caption as Michael Green, filed a petition challenging his 2009 state convictions for sexual abuse and sexual assault of a child. The opinion states that he received a sentence of 61 years to life. He had previously filed three petitions in the same district challenging those convictions. The first was denied on the merits. His appeals from that case and the later cases were terminated because one appeal was untimely or because the appeals court denied a certificate allowing an appeal.
Reason for dismissal
The court treated the current petition as a second or successive petition. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A), a person seeking to file such a petition must first obtain authorization from the appeals court. Brewer had not shown that he received that authorization. The court therefore dismissed the petition as second or successive and unauthorized, without deciding whether his underlying challenges to the convictions were legally valid.
Other rulings
The court denied Brewer’s application to proceed without paying the filing fee because it lacked the required application form, a certificate of funds, and a prison trust-account statement showing six months of transactions. The court stated that it would reconsider the application if Brewer filed the proper documents.
The court also ruled that a certificate allowing an appeal would not issue. The clerk was directed to identify Marcus Pollard, the warden of the prison where Brewer was housed, as the sole respondent and to terminate the other named respondents. The clerk was further directed to terminate all pending motions, enter judgment in favor of the respondent, and close the case. Judge Liam H. Orrick signed the order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.