Hedgepeth v. Madden
- Beth Freeman
- 5:20-cv-00858
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 6
In Hedgepeth v. Madden, Judge Freeman dismissed the habeas petition for failure to exhaust, while allowing amendment and a renewed stay motion.
Hasson Hedgepeth’s federal challenge to his state conviction was dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies, but he was allowed to amend the petition and seek a renewed stay. R. Madden was the respondent.
What happened
Hedgepeth v. Madden concerns Hasson Hedgepeth’s challenge to his state conviction. He raised claims that the trial court failed to give certain defense instructions and that his appellate lawyer was ineffective for not raising that issue. The opinion says he had not raised these claims on direct appeal and was pursuing related state-court review.
The court dismissed the petition because Hedgepeth had not finished presenting his claims to the California Supreme Court. It allowed him to file an amended petition containing exhausted claims and the newer claims he was still pursuing in state court. The court also allowed him to file a renewed request to pause the federal case while he completed state review, but he would need to explain the claims and show good cause for the delay and that the claims may have merit.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman ordered Hedgepeth to file the amended petition within 28 days. If he did not timely file it, or if it contained no exhausted claims, the case would be dismissed for failure to exhaust all claims.
The detailed version
- Hedgepeth v. Madden · No. 5:20-cv-00858
- Beth Freeman
- Apr. 7, 2021
Background
Hasson Hedgepeth, a state prisoner representing himself, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his state conviction. The petition identified two grounds for relief: (1) the trial court failed to instruct the jury on self-defense, sudden quarrel, or heat of passion defenses; and (2) appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to raise the instructional issue on appeal. The court determined that these claims could be considered in a federal habeas case.
The case had previously been dismissed after Hedgepeth did not timely file the required request to proceed without paying the filing fee, and it was later reopened after he completed his application. Hedgepeth also filed a motion asking the court to pause the federal case while he pursued state-court review. That motion had previously been dismissed without prejudice to renewal after the court completed its initial review of the petition.
Exhaustion of state remedies
Before a state prisoner may obtain federal habeas review, he generally must give the state courts, including the highest available state court, a fair opportunity to decide each federal claim. The court found that Hedgepeth’s two claims had not been raised on direct appeal. The petition and his stay request also indicated that collateral proceedings remained pending in state court concerning issues he described as “uncertified.”
Because the claims had not been exhausted, the court concluded that the petition was subject to dismissal for failure to exhaust available state remedies. The court nevertheless granted leave to amend because Hedgepeth might still pursue federal review of claims that had been exhausted through direct review.
Request to pause the case
Hedgepeth asked the court to stay the federal case while he exhausted the “uncertified issues.” The court found that he had not identified those issues clearly enough to determine which claims he was pursuing or whether they matched the claims in the petition.
The court granted him leave to file a renewed motion for a stay together with his amended petition. To support a stay, he would need to address the required factors, including good cause for failing to exhaust earlier and whether the new claims were potentially meritorious. If he failed to make that showing, the court stated that it would strike the unexhausted claims and proceed only with exhausted claims.
Disposition
The court ordered that the petition be dismissed with leave to amend. Within 28 days after the order was filed, Hedgepeth had to submit an amended petition containing both claims exhausted on direct appeal and the new claims he was attempting to exhaust in state court. He was also permitted to file a renewed motion for a stay with the amended petition. The court directed the Clerk to send him two copies of the court’s form petition. The order was signed by Beth Labson Freeman, United States District Judge.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.