Housh v. Rackley
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:17-cv-04222
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Housh v. Rackley, Judge Gilliam denied new evidence but granted a status update in Carlos C. Housh’s federal challenge to his state conviction.
Carlos C. Housh, the self-represented prisoner who sought a status update and permission to submit new evidence; the order also addressed his allegations about law-library access and rejected mail.
What happened
Housh v. Rackley concerns Carlos C. Housh’s challenge to a conviction from Marin County Superior Court. Housh asked for a status update and sought to submit a letter from his former public defender as newly discovered evidence of racial issues in his case.
The court granted the status-update request and said it would send Housh a copy of the docket. It denied the request to submit the letter because the letter was not evidence of racial issues during the trial and was not part of the state-court record reviewed in the federal case.
Judge Haywood Gilliam also said Housh did not need law-library access to meet any briefing deadlines because the petition was fully briefed. The court said complaints about law-library access and rejected mail concern prison conditions and may be brought in a separate civil-rights case, and the clerk was ordered to send Housh two complaint forms.
The detailed version
- Housh v. Rackley · No. 4:17-cv-04222
- Haywood Gilliam
- Sept. 28, 2020
Background
Carlos C. Housh, a self-represented prisoner, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging a conviction from Marin County Superior Court. He submitted a letter asking for a status update and requesting permission to submit a July 8, 2020 letter from his former public defender as “newly discovered evidence” that his case involved significant racial issues. He also alleged that the prison had not allowed him to use the law library and that California Medical Facility had been turning away his mail.
New-evidence request
The court denied Housh’s request to submit the former public defender’s letter. It gave two reasons. First, the letter was not evidence of racial issues during Housh’s trial. Second, even if the letter could be considered evidence, it was not part of the record before the state court when that court decided the claims raised in Housh’s federal petition.
The court explained that, when reviewing claims already decided on their merits by a state court, federal review under § 2254 generally relies on the evidence that was before the state court. The court cited the rule that new evidence generally cannot be used to determine whether the state court unreasonably applied federal law to the facts.
Other requests and ruling
The court granted Housh’s request for a status update and said it would send him a copy of the docket sheet under separate cover. Because the petition was fully briefed and no briefing deadlines were pending, the court stated that Housh did not need law-library access to comply with briefing obligations in this action.
The court said that any request for relief based on denial of law-library access or rejected mail concerned the conditions of Housh’s confinement, rather than the validity or duration of his confinement. It stated that such claims may be raised in a separate civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and ordered the clerk to send Housh two civil-rights complaint forms. The order terminated Docket No. 73. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. therefore granted the status-update request and denied the request to submit new evidence.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.