Lopez v. Martin
- Jon Tigar
- 4:20-cv-04430
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Lopez v. Martin, Judge Tigar dismissed Alejandro Javier Lopez’s federal petition without prejudice because he had not exhausted state remedies.
Alejandro Javier Lopez’s federal petition was dismissed without prejudice; Brian Martin and the other named respondents were not required to litigate the merits because the court found that state remedies had not been exhausted.
What happened
In Lopez v. Martin, Alejandro Javier Lopez filed a federal petition challenging parts of his state conviction and sentence. He filed the case without a lawyer, and the court granted his request to proceed without paying filing fees.
Lopez argued that the trial court improperly added prison-time penalties, that one sentence should run at the same time as another, that his sentence should be changed to home detention because of COVID-19, and that his sentence violated the Eighth Amendment. He had not appealed his conviction or sentence or presented these claims to California’s highest court.
Judge Jon S. Tigar dismissed the petition without prejudice because Lopez had not first exhausted available state court remedies. The court did not decide whether Lopez’s claims were legally valid and stated that he could file a new petition after exhausting those remedies.
The detailed version
- Lopez v. Martin · No. 4:20-cv-04430
- Jon Tigar
- Aug. 10, 2020
Background
Alejandro Javier Lopez filed this pro se action under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, a federal procedure allowing a state prisoner to challenge custody based on violations of federal law. The court granted Lopez’s request to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court reviewed the petition under the preliminary screening procedures for Section 2254 cases.
According to the petition, Lopez’s probation was revoked on May 11, 2020, after he pleaded no contest to violating California Health and Safety Code § 11379(a). He received an additional one-year term based on a prior prison term and an additional eight-month consecutive sentence for violating California Penal Code § 1320(a). The petition did not state the overall length of his sentence. Lopez did not appeal his conviction or sentence.
Claims
The court understood the petition to raise four claims: that the trial court improperly added the one-year term for the prior prison term; that the sentence under California Penal Code § 1320(a) should run concurrently rather than consecutively; that the sentence should be modified under 18 U.S.C. § 3582 to allow home detention because of COVID-19; and that the sentence violated the Eighth Amendment because the maximum sentence for violating California Health and Safety Code § 11379(a) is three years.
Exhaustion Requirement
Before a state prisoner may obtain federal review of the fact or length of confinement, the prisoner generally must exhaust state judicial remedies. This means giving the state courts, including the state’s highest court, a fair opportunity to consider each federal claim. The court found that Lopez had not given the California Supreme Court that opportunity.
Disposition
The court dismissed the petition without prejudice to filing a new petition after state judicial remedies are exhausted. Because the dismissal rested on failure to exhaust, the court did not reach the merits of Lopez’s sentencing and constitutional claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.