Craven v. Robertson
- Susan Illston
- 3:20-cv-01933
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Craven v. Robertson, Judge Illston denied Craven’s amendment request because his proposed custody claims were unexhausted and ordered a filing update.
Kalvin N. Craven, whose request to add unexhausted claims was denied; the pending federal petition remained unresolved in this order.
What happened
In Craven v. Robertson, Kalvin N. Craven asked to add ineffective-assistance and cumulative-error claims to his federal petition challenging his state custody. He acknowledged that these proposed claims had not first been presented to the state courts.
The court denied the motion to amend because federal courts generally cannot consider such claims until state remedies have been exhausted. The court noted that one proposed ineffective-assistance claim was already part of the pending petition and had been addressed by the parties.
Judge Susan Illston directed Craven to tell the court by May 14, 2021, whether he had filed a new state petition and to attach it if he had. If he had not, the court said it would rule on the pending federal petition.
The detailed version
- Craven v. Robertson · No. 3:20-cv-01933
- Susan Illston
- May 4, 2021
Background
On March 19, 2020, Kalvin N. Craven filed a timely federal petition challenging his state-court custody. The petition asserted three claims: that the trial court violated due process by admitting videos from Craven’s cell phone; that the trial court violated his constitutional rights through communications with jurors during deliberations and by failing to answer a jury question about a sentence-enhancement allegation; and that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to seek suppression of the cell-phone videos obtained without a warrant. The opinion states that these claims had been exhausted in state court, and the respondent had filed an answer addressing them.
In March 2021, Craven’s counsel filed motions seeking to add several claims alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and cumulative error. Craven conceded that the proposed new claims had not been exhausted in state court. The court also noted that one proposed claim—trial counsel’s alleged failure to seek suppression of the cell-phone videos—was not new because it was already in the petition and had been briefed by the parties.
Exhaustion requirement
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, a state prisoner generally must give the state courts a fair opportunity to decide each claim before seeking federal habeas relief. Because Craven conceded that the proposed new claims were unexhausted, the court concluded that it could not consider them and that amending the petition would be futile.
Ruling and next step
The court DENIED Craven’s motion to amend the petition. It did not rule in this order on the merits of the pending petition’s original claims. The court directed Craven to notify it by May 14, 2021, whether he had filed a new state habeas petition and, if so, to attach a copy. If he had not filed one, the court stated that it would rule on the pending federal petition.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.