Fuller v. Matteson
- James Donato
- 3:20-cv-01878
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Fuller v. Matteson, Judge Donato reopened the case, lifted its stay, and ordered the respondent to answer the prisoner’s claims.
Larry Darnell Fuller and the respondent, Giselle Matteson; the order also directs the California Attorney General’s Office to receive a copy and requires the respondent to provide relevant state trial-record materials.
What happened
In Fuller v. Matteson, Larry Darnell Fuller, a state prisoner representing himself, filed a federal petition challenging his murder conviction and life-without-parole sentence. The case had been paused while he pursued an additional claim in state court, and he later filed an amended petition saying all claims were exhausted.
Fuller claims that the trial court improperly admitted evidence of an earlier crime to show motive. He also claims that his trial and appeals lawyers were ineffective for not challenging cellphone evidence that he says was obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. The court found these claims sufficient to require a response but did not decide whether they are valid.
Judge Donato lifted the stay and reopened the case. He ordered the respondent to file an answer explaining why the requested relief should not be granted within 84 days, along with relevant portions of the state trial record. The respondent may instead file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds, and Fuller may respond under the stated deadlines.
The detailed version
- Fuller v. Matteson · No. 3:20-cv-01878
- James Donato
- Feb. 5, 2021
Background
Larry Darnell Fuller, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the federal law that allows a state prisoner to seek relief from custody on the ground that the conviction violates the Constitution or federal law. The court had stayed the case so Fuller could pursue an additional claim in state court. Fuller filed an amended petition and indicated that all of his claims had been exhausted through the state courts.
Fuller was convicted by a jury of one count of murder with the special circumstance that the victim was killed to prevent the victim from testifying. He was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. The California Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction, the California Supreme Court denied review, and the California Supreme Court later denied a state habeas petition.
Claims and Standard
Fuller asserts two grounds for federal relief: (1) the trial court erred by admitting evidence of a prior crime to show motive; and (2) trial counsel and appellate counsel were ineffective for failing to challenge cellphone evidence that Fuller says was obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The court explained that a federal habeas petition must identify each ground for relief and the facts supporting it. Liberally construing Fuller’s amended petition, the court found that his claims were sufficient to require a response.
Order
The court lifted the stay and reopened the case. It directed the respondent to file and serve an answer within 84 days showing why a writ of habeas corpus should not be granted, and to provide relevant transcribed portions of the state trial record. The respondent may file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds instead of an answer. The order also set deadlines for Fuller to respond to an answer or motion and reminded him to serve his filings, keep the court informed of any address change, and comply with court orders.
Judge James Donato did not decide whether Fuller is entitled to relief, whether the cellphone evidence violated the Fourth Amendment, or whether his lawyers were ineffective.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.