Omar v. Koenig
- Susan Illston
- 3:20-cv-08228
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Omar v. Koenig, Judge Illston allowed four federal habeas claims to proceed, dismissed state-law claims without leave to amend, and ordered a response.
Abdol Ali Omar’s four federal habeas claims remained pending and required a response from Craig Koenig; Omar’s California-law claims were dismissed without leave to amend.
What happened
In Omar v. Koenig, Abdol Ali Omar challenged his California murder conviction in federal court. The court found that four claims involving due process and ineffective assistance of counsel could proceed and required the respondent to answer them.
Omar alleged that the trial court failed to instruct the jury on a lesser murder offense, his lawyer failed to present evidence about his impaired mental functioning, his lawyer failed to object to a body-camera video, and these errors together violated his rights. He also raised claims under California law.
Judge Susan Illston dismissed the California-law claims without leave to amend because federal habeas relief is limited to violations of federal law. She ordered Craig Koenig to show why the federal petition should not be granted and set deadlines for the response and Omar’s reply.
The detailed version
- Omar v. Koenig · No. 3:20-cv-08228
- Susan Illston
- Jan. 21, 2021
Background
Abdol Ali Omar, who was incarcerated at the Correctional Training Facility in Soledad, filed this self-represented petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. After a jury trial in Alameda County Superior Court, he was found guilty of first-degree murder and found to have used a dangerous or deadly weapon. He was sentenced on June 20, 2017, to 26 years to life in prison. The California Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction in 2019, and the California Supreme Court denied review that year.
Claims and screening
The court reviewed the petition under the federal habeas screening rules. It identified four federal claims:
- The failure to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of second-degree implied-malice murder violated due process.
- Trial counsel was ineffective for failing to introduce expert testimony about Omar’s impaired mental functioning.
- Trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to an allegedly irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial body-camera video showing a police officer giving the victim cardiopulmonary resuscitation.
- The combined effect of these alleged errors violated due process.
The court held that these four claims were legally eligible for consideration in a federal habeas case and warranted a response. The court did not decide whether Omar would ultimately prevail on those claims.
State-law claims
Omar also raised several claims under California law. The court explained that federal habeas relief is available only for violations of the United States Constitution, federal laws, or treaties. It therefore dismissed the state-law claims without leave to amend.
Order
The court ordered the clerk to serve the order on the respondent and the California Attorney General’s Office. Craig Koenig was required to file and serve an answer by April 2, 2021, explaining why the federal habeas writ should not issue and providing relevant portions of the previously transcribed state-court proceedings. Omar could file a reply, called a traverse, by May 14, 2021. The order also required Omar to prosecute the case, keep the court informed of address changes, and follow the court’s orders.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.