Edgin v. Covello
- James Donato
- 3:20-cv-07565
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Edgin v. Covello, Judge Illman granted Edgin’s fee waiver and ordered Covello to respond to his habeas claims.
Darrel Edgin, who may continue litigating his federal habeas petition without paying filing fees, and Patrick Covello, who must respond or file a procedural dismissal motion within the stated deadlines.
What happened
In Edgin v. Covello, Darrel Edgin, a California prisoner representing himself, filed a petition asking a federal court to review his state convictions. He claimed that his lawyer was ineffective and that the evidence did not support the convictions.
The court granted Edgin permission to proceed without paying filing fees. It found that his claims were sufficient to require a response and ordered Patrick Covello to file an answer within 56 days, along with relevant portions of the state trial record. Covello may instead file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds.
Judge Robert M. Illman issued the order. The court did not decide whether Edgin’s claims were meritorious; it only directed the respondent to answer or seek dismissal.
The detailed version
- Edgin v. Covello · No. 3:20-cv-07565
- James Donato
- Nov. 16, 2020
Background
Darrel Edgin, a California prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 seeking federal review of his state-court convictions. The opinion states that he was convicted of having sexual intercourse with a child age ten or younger, committing a lewd or lascivious act on a child under 14, and continuously sexually abusing a child under 14. He received a sentence of 50 years to life in state prison. The California Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, the California Supreme Court denied review, and Edgin’s state habeas petitions were denied.
Claims and ruling
Edgin asserted two grounds for federal relief: ineffective assistance of counsel and insufficient evidence to support his convictions. Applying the pleading requirements for federal habeas petitions, the court concluded that, when read liberally, these claims were sufficient to require a response. The court did not decide whether either claim ultimately succeeds.
The court granted Edgin’s motion to proceed without paying filing fees. It ordered Patrick Covello to file and serve an answer showing why habeas relief should not be granted within 56 days of the order’s issuance, together with relevant previously transcribed portions of the state trial record. Covello may file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds instead of an answer. If Covello files an answer, Edgin may file a response within 28 days after receiving it; if Covello files a dismissal motion, Edgin may oppose it or state that he does not oppose it within 28 days, and Covello may reply within 14 days after receiving any opposition.
Effect of the order
The petition remains pending. The order moves the case forward by requiring a response, but it contains no decision on the merits of Edgin’s ineffective-assistance or insufficient-evidence claims. Judge Robert M. Illman also reminded Edgin to serve court filings on respondent’s counsel, keep the court informed of address changes, and comply with court orders; failure to do so 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.