Barker v. Neushmid
- Jon Tigar
- 4:20-cv-05540
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Barker v. Neushmid, Judge Tigar ordered a response to Barker’s habeas petition without deciding whether his custody violated federal law.
Tremain L. Barker, the respondent identified in the order as Warden Craig Koenig, and the respondent’s counsel, the Attorney General of California.
What happened
In Barker v. Neushmid, Tremain L. Barker, a state prisoner, filed a petition asking a federal court to review his custody. He challenged a 1997 San Mateo County conviction and sentence of 27 years to life, and said state courts had rejected his claims.
Barker alleged that California State Prison–Solano unlawfully transferred authority to the Board of Parole Hearings to decide whether he was eligible for release. The court found that, when read liberally, this claim could be considered under the federal habeas law and required a response from the respondent.
Judge Jon S. Tigar ordered the respondent to answer within 60 days or file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds instead. The order did not decide whether Barker’s claims were correct or whether he should receive habeas relief.
The detailed version
- Barker v. Neushmid · No. 4:20-cv-05540
- Jon Tigar
- Nov. 30, 2020
Background
Tremain L. Barker, a state prisoner incarcerated at Correctional Training Facility, filed a petition without a lawyer under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the federal law allowing a person in state custody to challenge custody that allegedly violates the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties. The petition challenged a conviction from San Mateo County Superior Court. According to the opinion, a San Mateo County jury convicted Barker in 1997 of attempted first-degree murder and attempted second-degree murder, with firearm enhancements. He received a total sentence of 27 years to life.
Barker stated that he had presented the claims in petitions to the San Mateo County Superior Court, the California Court of Appeal, and the California Supreme Court, and that those petitions were denied. He filed the federal petition on or about July 26, 2020, and paid the filing fee.
Claim and screening
Barker alleged that he was held in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments because California State Prison–Solano unlawfully ceded jurisdiction to the Board of Parole Hearings to determine his eligibility for release. The court said that, liberally construing the petition because Barker was unrepresented, the claim appeared cognizable under § 2254 and warranted an answer from the respondent.
The court did not decide the merits of the claim. It issued an order to show cause, requiring the respondent to explain why the writ of habeas corpus should not be granted. The order also directed the Clerk to substitute Warden Craig Koenig as respondent under the cited procedural rules.
Order
Judge Jon S. Tigar directed the respondent to file and serve an answer within 60 days, along with relevant portions of the previously transcribed state trial record. Barker could file a response within 30 days after the answer. The respondent could instead file, within 60 days, a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds; the order set deadlines for Barker’s opposition and the respondent’s reply.
The court also reminded Barker to serve court communications on opposing counsel, keep the court informed of address changes, and comply with court orders. The order stated that failure to do so could result in dismissal for failure to prosecute. The court granted requests for reasonable extensions of time upon a showing of good cause if filed by the applicable deadline. No final decision on habeas relief was made.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.