Sandoval v. Cisneros
- Charles Breyer
- 3:21-cv-01783
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Sandoval v. Cisneros, Judge Breyer dismissed the petition without prejudice, instructed Sandoval to seek reopening of an earlier stayed case, and granted his request to proceed without paying fees.
Julio Sandoval’s third federal habeas petition was dismissed without prejudice, and he was directed to seek relief through his earlier stayed federal case. His request to proceed without paying filing fees was granted.
What happened
Sandoval v. Cisneros involved Julio Sandoval’s third federal petition challenging his 2008 Santa Clara County murder conviction. The petition repeated two claims from an earlier petition and included other claims that Sandoval said he had recently exhausted in state court.
The court dismissed the third petition without prejudice. It instructed Sandoval to file a motion in his earlier stayed federal case asking to reopen that case, lift the stay, and allow an amended petition containing the exhausted claims he wanted to pursue. The court also closed this case and terminated Sandoval’s request for a stay as moot.
Judge Charles R. Breyer granted Sandoval’s request to proceed without paying filing fees based on his affidavit of poverty. The court did not decide whether Sandoval’s habeas claims were legally valid.
The detailed version
- Sandoval v. Cisneros · No. 3:21-cv-01783
- Charles Breyer
- Apr. 20, 2021
Background
Julio Sandoval filed this third federal petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging a 2008 conviction from Santa Clara County Superior Court. The petition repeated two claims from his first federal petition: that insufficient evidence supported the premeditation and deliberation element of his first-degree murder conviction, and that he was denied equal protection because an aider and abettor of an assault could be convicted of murder without a finding of malice under the natural-and-probable-consequences doctrine. The petition also raised new claims that Sandoval said he had recently exhausted in state court.
The court had previously stayed Sandoval’s first federal petition so he could exhaust an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim in state court. It had instructed him to move to reopen that case and lift the stay after completing state-court exhaustion. Sandoval later filed a second federal petition, which the court dismissed without prejudice and directed him to pursue the reopening procedure in the earlier stayed case. He then filed this third petition.
Ruling
The court dismissed this third federal petition without prejudice to Sandoval filing a motion in the earlier stayed federal case to reopen it, lift the stay, and file an amended petition containing all exhausted claims he wished to pursue in federal court. The court instructed Sandoval to explain why reopening and lifting the stay should be allowed after the lengthy delay and to attach his proposed amended petition.
The clerk was instructed to close this case. The court also terminated Sandoval’s motion for a stay of these proceedings as moot. Separately, based solely on Sandoval’s affidavit of poverty, the court granted his request to proceed without paying filing fees.
What the ruling did not decide
The court did not decide the merits of Sandoval’s challenges to his conviction or his other habeas claims. The dismissal left open the procedure described by the court: seeking to reopen the earlier stayed case and filing an amended petition there.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.