Stepp v. In Re: Writ of Habeas Corpus
- James Donato
- 3:20-cv-01688
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Stepp v. In Re: Writ of Habeas Corpus, Judge Donato allowed Stepp to proceed without paying filing fees, dismissed one claim, and ordered a response to another habeas claim.
Robert William Stepp’s second habeas claim was dismissed, while his first claim remained pending for a response. The respondent was required to answer or file a procedural motion, and the State of California’s Attorney General was served with the order.
What happened
In Stepp v. In Re: Writ of Habeas Corpus, Robert William Stepp challenged his state conviction and sentence through a federal petition asking the court to review his custody. The court allowed him to proceed without paying filing fees.
Stepp said the trial court violated his plea agreement and improperly imposed sentencing enhancements. He also argued that the state courts improperly handled his state requests for habeas relief. The court found that federal habeas review was unavailable for the alleged state-law error in his second claim and dismissed that claim.
The court found that Stepp’s first claim was sufficient to require a response but did not decide whether he should receive habeas relief. Judge James Donato ordered the respondent to answer within 56 days and provide relevant portions of the state trial record; the respondent could instead file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds.
The detailed version
- Stepp v. In Re: Writ of Habeas Corpus · No. 3:20-cv-01688
- James Donato
- Oct. 27, 2020
Background
Robert William Stepp, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 asking for federal review of his state custody. He also requested permission to proceed without paying filing fees. The court stated that venue was proper because Stepp was convicted in Humboldt County, which is in the district.
Stepp pleaded guilty to attempted murder and received a 21-year state-prison sentence on November 16, 2017. He stated that his state habeas petitions had been denied.
Claims and analysis
Stepp asserted two grounds for federal relief: (1) the trial court violated his plea agreement and improperly imposed sentencing enhancements; and (2) the state courts improperly reviewed his state habeas petitions.
The court dismissed the second claim because federal habeas relief is not available for an alleged state-law error. The court explained that a federal habeas court cannot reexamine a state court’s interpretation and application of state law. The court liberally construed the first claim and found it sufficient to require a response. It did not decide the first claim’s merits.
Order
The court granted Stepp’s motion to proceed without paying filing fees and dismissed the second claim from the action. It ordered the respondent to file an answer within 56 days explaining why a writ of habeas corpus should not be granted, along with relevant portions of the previously transcribed state trial record. Stepp could file a response within 28 days after receiving the answer. The respondent could file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds instead of an answer. Judge James Donato also directed the parties to serve their filings on each other and warned that failure to comply with court orders could lead to dismissal for failure to prosecute.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.