Torres v. Kernan

Background

Mario Torres, a former California prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition for federal review under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He stated that he pleaded guilty on February 5, 2015, and was resentenced on October 3, 2018, without his knowledge or consent. He said restitution was imposed at resentencing. The opinion also states that his written 2015 plea agreement showed that he had initialed his understanding that conviction on the underlying charge would require restitution. Torres was no longer in custody when he filed the petition.

The court had dismissed the original petition with permission to amend. Torres alleged that the restitution order violated the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. He asked to pause the federal case so he could exhaust, or present, his claims in state court. He cited difficulties caused by representing himself and by public-health-related library closures. He also asked the court to appoint counsel.

Court’s reasoning

The court applied the standard for staying a mixed federal habeas petition. Under that standard, a stay may be appropriate when the petitioner shows good cause for not first exhausting the claims in state court, the claims may have merit, and the petitioner has not intentionally delayed the case. The court found that Torres had shown good cause, that his claims did not appear plainly meritless, and that there was no indication of intentional delay.

The court told Torres that, before challenging the fact or length of his confinement in federal court, he must present the claims he wishes to pursue to the California Supreme Court. It also repeated that it was unclear whether he could bring the claim because he was no longer incarcerated; if he did not obtain relief in state court, he would still need to address that issue for the case to continue.

The court denied appointed counsel because the constitutional right to counsel does not apply in habeas cases, and because Torres had presented his claims adequately and they were not particularly complex. The court concluded that the interests of justice did not require appointing counsel.

Ruling and case status

Judge Hamilton denied the motion to appoint counsel. She granted the motion for a stay and stayed the case so Torres could present his unexhausted claims in state court. The stay requires Torres to pursue the state proceedings diligently and to notify the federal court within 30 days after the state courts complete their review or refuse to review his claims. If either condition is not met, the court may vacate the stay and act on the petition.

The clerk was directed to administratively close the case. The order states that this closure is purely statistical and has no legal effect; the case may be reopened and the stay lifted if Torres returns after the state proceedings. Torres must also keep the court informed of address changes and comply with court orders, or the case may be dismissed for failure to prosecute. The court did not decide the merits of Torres’s restitution claims.