Fockaert v. Koenig

Background

Matthew M. Fockaert filed a petition for federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, asking the court to review his state convictions and sentence. According to the petition, Fockaert pleaded no contest in 2018 in Humboldt County Superior Court to attempted second-degree murder, false imprisonment, and a sentencing enhancement for personally inflicting great bodily injury while committing or attempting to commit a felony. The state court imposed a 10-year sentence.

Fockaert did not file a direct appeal. He did seek relief through a state collateral proceeding, but that request was denied. He then filed the federal petition, alleging that his sentence violated federal constitutional rights.

Initial Review

The court reviewed the petition under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2243 and 2254 Rule 4. The court stated that summary dismissal is appropriate only when a petition’s allegations are vague or conclusory, plainly incredible, or clearly frivolous or false. Construing Fockaert’s allegations liberally, the court determined that they stated cognizable claims—claims legally capable of supporting federal habeas relief.

This was not a decision on whether Fockaert should receive habeas relief. The court only determined that the petition could proceed to the response stage.

Order

The court ordered C. Koenig to file an answer by January 18, 2021, explaining why a writ of habeas corpus should not be granted and providing relevant, previously transcribed portions of the state trial record. Fockaert could file a response within 30 days after the answer was filed.

Instead of an answer, Koenig could file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds by the same deadline. If that occurred, Fockaert would have 30 days to respond, and Koenig would have 15 days to file a reply.

The court also ordered the Clerk to amend the docket so that Koenig, identified as the warden of the prison where Fockaert was housed, would be the sole respondent. The order stated that Koenig, rather than Ralph Diaz, the Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, was the proper respondent because Koenig had day-to-day custody of Fockaert. Diaz was terminated as a respondent.

Disposition

Judge Richard Seeborg issued an order to show cause and allowed the petition to proceed to the response stage. The order did not grant or deny habeas relief and did not decide the merits of Fockaert’s claims.