Daviesson v. Broomfield

Background

Eric C. Daviesson, an inmate at San Quentin State Prison, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 seeking federal review of his state custody. The opinion states that he had pleaded no contest to some felony charges, was placed on probation in 2013, later had probation revoked on 10 felony convictions, and was resentenced. He reported that he was resentenced on May 9, 2018, to 10 years in prison. He filed the federal petition without a lawyer.

Claims

Daviesson asserted several claims concerning actual innocence of a sentence enhancement for inflicting great bodily injury. He alleged that newly discovered medical records showed the injury did not occur, that the prosecutor concealed those records, and that his defense lawyer was ineffective for failing to investigate them. He also alleged that his plea to the enhancement was not knowing, intelligent, or voluntary because of the alleged concealment, perjury, and ineffective assistance.

Daviesson separately claimed that he was denied access to the courts because state courts allegedly failed to address his claim involving the newly discovered evidence. The court treated that as a claim about the state post-conviction process itself, rather than a claim of constitutional error at trial, on appeal, or at sentencing.

Court’s analysis

At the initial review stage, the court may dismiss a federal habeas petition when its allegations are vague, conclusory, incredible, frivolous, or false. The court gave Daviesson’s allegations a liberal reading and concluded that it could not say his actual-innocence, prosecutorial-misconduct, ineffective-assistance, and plea claims were meritless. The court therefore ordered the respondent to respond to those claims rather than deciding them.

The court dismissed the access-to-the-courts claim without leave to amend. It explained that alleged errors in state post-conviction review generally do not attack the legality of the underlying detention and are not grounds for federal habeas relief. A petitioner may still rely on a state court’s handling of a claim when challenging the state court’s decision on an underlying constitutional claim, but may not bring a separate federal habeas claim based only on an alleged error in the state habeas proceeding.

Disposition

The court dismissed the denial-of-access-to-the-courts claim without leave to amend. It ordered the respondent to file an answer by November 20, 2020, and allowed Daviesson until December 31, 2020, to file a response if he wished. The order did not resolve the merits of Daviesson’s remaining claims.