Bailey v. Koening
- Charles Breyer
- 3:20-cv-04428
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Bailey v. Koenig, Judge Breyer dismissed Bailey’s DNA-testing habeas petition, allowing a civil-rights filing instead, and denied appointed counsel and an appeal certificate.
Jasper Bailey’s habeas petition was dismissed without prejudice; his request to proceed without paying fees was granted, while his request for appointed counsel and a certificate of appealability were denied.
What happened
Bailey v. Koenig involved Jasper Bailey’s challenge to the California courts’ denial of his request for DNA testing under California law. Bailey filed the challenge as a petition asking a federal court to review his imprisonment-related claim, and he also requested a fee waiver and appointed counsel.
The court said that success on the DNA-testing request would not necessarily result in Bailey’s earlier release because testing might be inconclusive, exculpatory, or incriminating. The court therefore concluded that the challenge did not belong in a habeas case and would have to be brought, if at all, as a civil-rights case.
The court dismissed the habeas petition without prejudice to filing a civil-rights complaint, granted Bailey’s request to proceed without paying fees, denied appointed counsel, and denied a certificate allowing an appeal. Judge Charles R. Breyer signed the order.
The detailed version
- Bailey v. Koening · No. 3:20-cv-04428
- Charles Breyer
- Dec. 4, 2020
Background
Jasper Bailey, identified in the caption as G60744, is a state prisoner incarcerated at the Correctional Training Facility in Soledad, California, under a 2009 criminal judgment from the Santa Clara County Superior Court. He filed a petition for a federal writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The petition challenged the state courts’ recent denial of his motion for DNA testing of potentially exculpatory evidence under California Penal Code § 1405.
Bailey also asked to proceed without paying the filing fee based on financial hardship and requested appointment of counsel. The court granted the fee-waiver request based solely on his affidavit of poverty.
Reasoning
The court explained that habeas corpus is the exclusive federal remedy when a prisoner seeks immediate or speedier release from confinement. A civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 may be used when success on the claim would not necessarily produce earlier release.
The court applied that distinction here. Even if Bailey obtained DNA testing, the results might be inconclusive, might help him, or might further incriminate him. Because success would not necessarily lead to immediate or earlier release, the court held that the DNA-testing challenge did not fall within the core of habeas corpus. The court stated that the claim must be brought, if at all, under § 1983.
The court’s footnote noted that federal law places severe limits on a state prisoner’s federal action seeking DNA testing. It also noted that the Supreme Court had rejected extending substantive due process to this area while leaving limited room for a claim that state law denies procedural due process. The court further cited Ninth Circuit decisions addressing challenges to California Penal Code § 1405 and challenges seeking relief from a state court’s particular DNA-testing determination.
Disposition
The court DISMISSED the § 2254 habeas petition without prejudice to bringing a civil-rights complaint under § 1983. It DENIED Bailey’s motion for appointment of counsel. It also DENIED a certificate of appealability because the court concluded that reasonable judges could not debate whether the petition stated a valid constitutional claim or whether the court’s procedural ruling was correct.
Judge Charles R. Breyer entered the order on December 4, 2020.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.