Cai v. McDowell
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:19-cv-03067
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Cai v. McDowell, Judge Gilliam granted Cai’s request to amend his federal petition challenging his conviction, lifted the stay, and ordered McDowell to respond.
Jason Cai’s amended federal challenge to his state-court conviction will proceed to the response stage; Neil McDowell must answer or file a procedural motion to dismiss within the time set by the court.
What happened
In Cai v. McDowell, Jason Cai asked to amend his federal petition challenging his state-court conviction. The request was unopposed, and the court treated the new petition as the operative petition.
According to the amended petition, Cai was convicted of premeditated murder and sentenced to life without parole plus 25 years to life. The court found that the amended claims were sufficient to require a response, but it did not decide whether Cai should win.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. lifted the earlier stay, granted the request to amend, and ordered Neil McDowell to answer within 91 days or file a procedural motion to dismiss instead.
The detailed version
- Cai v. McDowell · No. 4:19-cv-03067
- Haywood Gilliam
- Nov. 6, 2020
Background
Jason Cai filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, which allows a person in state custody to ask a federal court to review the legality of that custody. He later moved to amend the petition and filed the proposed amended petition separately. The request was unopposed.
According to the amended petition, Cai was convicted of one count of premeditated murder and sentenced to life without the possibility of parole plus a consecutive term of 25 years to life. The California Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction in May 2016, and the California Supreme Court denied review in August 2016. The opinion also describes later state-court petitions, including petitions denied by the Santa Clara Superior Court, the California Court of Appeal, and the California Supreme Court.
Cai had previously asked the federal court to hold his petition in abeyance while he exhausted additional claims in state court. The court had granted that request and directed him to return to federal court after exhaustion. The amended petition reported that the additional state-court proceedings had concluded.
Ruling
The court stated that, when read liberally, the claims in the amended petition were sufficient to require a response. It ordered the respondent to show cause why the petition should not be granted. This was not a decision on the merits of Cai’s claims.
The court ordered the following:
- It lifted the previously granted stay. - It granted Cai’s unopposed request to amend the petition. - It deemed the first amended petition submitted and operative. - It required the respondent to file and serve an answer within 91 days, together with previously transcribed portions of the relevant state trial record. - It allowed the respondent to file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds within the same 91-day period instead of an answer. - If an answer is filed, Cai may file a reply within 35 days. If a procedural motion to dismiss is filed, Cai may respond within 28 days, and the respondent may reply within 14 days after that response.
The order also reminded Cai to serve his filings on respondent’s counsel, keep the court informed of any address change, and comply with court orders. The court warned that failure to do so could lead to dismissal for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.