White v. Matteson
- William Orrick
- 3:20-cv-05946
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In White v. John Doe, Judge Orrick dismissed Barry White’s state-conviction petition because it appeared unexhausted and insufficient, allowing amendment.
Barry White, Jr., whose federal petition challenging his state convictions was dismissed with leave to amend, and John Doe, the respondent identified in the opinion’s caption.
What happened
In White v. John Doe, Barry White sought federal review of his state convictions. The court said his claims appeared unexhausted and did not include enough supporting facts.
White said he had been convicted of two murder charges and sentenced to two life terms without parole. He raised claims about ineffective assistance by his lawyers and missing jury instructions, but he also stated that he had not yet pursued his claims through the state courts.
Judge William H. Orrick dismissed the petition with leave to file an amended petition by June 1, 2021. The court also granted White permission to proceed without paying the filing fee and said he could ask to pause the case while exhausting his claims.
The detailed version
- White v. Matteson · No. 3:20-cv-05946
- William Orrick
- Apr. 15, 2021
Background
Barry White, Jr. sought relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the federal law allowing a person held under a state-court judgment to challenge custody that violates federal law. The petition indicates that White was convicted in San Francisco Superior Court of two murder charges and received two life sentences without the possibility of parole. The opinion does not state the dates of conviction or sentencing.
White stated that he had not exhausted his claims in the state courts. His petition raised an ineffective-assistance claim, alleging that assigned lawyers failed to tell him important information, prevented him from making closing arguments, and lied to him. He also alleged that a public defender had a false belief and that jury instructions were not provided. The court found these allegations too general and said White needed to provide facts explaining, for example, what lies were told and how they affected his case.
Reasons for Dismissal
The court identified two reasons for dismissing the petition. First, a person challenging a state conviction in federal court generally must first give the highest available state court a fair opportunity to decide each federal claim. Because White said he had not done so, the court warned that the respondent would likely seek dismissal for failure to exhaust state remedies. The court stated that White could ask to stay, or pause, the federal case while he pursued those remedies.
Second, the court held that White’s claims were insufficiently detailed. It explained that a federal habeas petition must state facts showing a real possibility of a constitutional error, rather than relying on conclusory allegations.
Disposition
The court dismissed the petition with leave to file an amended petition by June 1, 2021. The amended petition had to use the case caption and civil case number in the order, be labeled “FIRST AMENDED PETITION,” and include all claims White wanted to pursue because an amended petition replaces the earlier petitions. The court warned that failure to comply could result in dismissal of the action without further notice. It granted White’s application to proceed without paying the filing fee and directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions. The order did not decide whether White’s underlying constitutional claims would succeed.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.