Guerrero v. Matterson
- William Orrick
- 3:20-cv-05923
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Guerrero v. Matterson, Judge Orrick dismissed Guerrero’s petition challenging state convictions with leave to amend and granted his fee waiver.
Richard Orestes Guerrero’s federal challenge to his state convictions was dismissed as filed, but he was allowed to submit an amended petition by January 18, 2021; G. Matterson remained the respondent.
What happened
In Guerrero v. Matterson, Richard Orestes Guerrero challenged his state convictions for voluntary manslaughter, assault with a firearm, and a gang sentencing enhancement. He had pleaded no contest in state court and said his efforts to overturn the convictions there had failed.
The court said Guerrero’s Fourth Amendment claims could not be reviewed because California provided an opportunity to fully litigate them. Because he had pleaded guilty, the court also said his remaining federal claims could proceed only if they challenged whether his plea was voluntary and informed or whether his lawyer gave adequate advice; the petition did not raise those claims.
Judge William H. Orrick dismissed the petition with leave to amend by January 18, 2021, and said Guerrero could seek a stay while exhausting appropriate claims in state court. The court granted his request to proceed without paying the filing fee and terminated all pending motions.
The detailed version
- Guerrero v. Matterson · No. 3:20-cv-05923
- William Orrick
- Dec. 8, 2020
Background
Richard Orestes Guerrero filed a federal petition for a writ of habeas corpus, a procedure for challenging unlawful custody, based on state-court convictions. According to the petition, he pleaded no contest in 2018 in the Santa Clara County Superior Court to voluntary manslaughter, assault with a firearm, and a gang sentencing enhancement. His attempts to overturn the convictions in state court were unsuccessful.
Claims
Guerrero alleged that the trial court ignored or denied various motions, that the evidence was insufficient, that his speedy-trial rights were violated, that the trial judge should have been disqualified, that his lawyer provided ineffective assistance, and that evidence should have been suppressed under the Fourth Amendment.
Court’s analysis
The court held that Guerrero’s Fourth Amendment claims were barred from federal habeas review because California provided an opportunity for full and fair litigation of those claims. The court explained that the existence of that state procedure was enough, whether or not Guerrero actually used it.
The court also held that, because Guerrero pleaded guilty, only two types of habeas claims were available on the allegations presented: a claim that the plea was not voluntary and informed, and a claim that counsel’s advice was inadequate. The petition did not appear to raise either claim. The court therefore did not allow the petition to proceed as filed.
The court noted that Guerrero might not have exhausted these potential claims in state court. Exhaustion requires presenting each federal claim to the highest available state court before seeking federal habeas relief. The court stated that Guerrero could consider asking to pause the federal case while he pursued that state-court process.
Disposition
Judge William H. Orrick dismissed the petition with leave to file an amended petition by January 18, 2021. The amended petition had to include all claims Guerrero wished to present and could not incorporate the earlier petition by reference. The order warned that failure to file a compliant amended petition would result in dismissal of the action without further notice. The court granted Guerrero’s motion to proceed without paying the filing fee, terminated all pending motions, and instructed him to comply with court orders and keep the court informed of address changes.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.