McNeally v. Koenig
- Charles Breyer
- 3:21-cv-01161
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In McNeally v. Koenig, Judge Breyer granted IFP and ordered a response to Robert McNeally’s federal habeas petition without deciding its merits.
Robert McNeally and C. Koenig; the order also directs the clerk and sets obligations for the respondent and petitioner.
What happened
In McNeally v. Koenig, Robert McNeally, a state prisoner, challenged his Contra Costa County conviction and sentence in a petition asking a federal court to review his custody. He raised ten claims involving evidence disclosure, trial rulings, restraints, jury instructions, juror misconduct, and excluded expert testimony.
The court found that the claims appeared potentially reviewable under the federal law governing challenges to state convictions. It therefore ordered C. Koenig, the respondent, to explain why the requested relief should not be granted. The respondent may instead file a motion challenging the petition on procedural grounds.
The court granted McNeally permission to proceed without paying the filing fee and set deadlines for the respondent’s response and any reply from McNeally. Judge Charles R. Breyer did not decide whether McNeally’s claims were valid.
The detailed version
- McNeally v. Koenig · No. 3:21-cv-01161
- Charles Breyer
- May 24, 2021
Background
Robert McNeally, a state prisoner incarcerated at the Correctional Training Facility in Soledad, California, filed a self-represented petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging a Contra Costa County Superior Court conviction and sentence. A jury convicted him of kidnapping for sexual purposes, several other sexual offenses, and related enhancements. He was sentenced on July 25, 2014, to 82 years to life in state prison.
McNeally’s direct appeals and state requests for post-conviction relief were unsuccessful. The Supreme Court of California denied his final state petition on August 12, 2020. He filed the federal petition on February 17, 2021, and separately requested permission to proceed without paying the filing fee.
Claims
The petition raised ten general claims concerning alleged failures to disclose favorable or impeachment evidence; the trial court’s discovery rulings; interference with trial counsel; restraints in the presence of jurors; jury instructions concerning the victim’s credibility and ability to consent; the trial court’s response to shackling and an alleged discussion of the case; juror misconduct involving a newspaper article; and exclusion of defense expert testimony.
The court stated that, liberally construed, the claims appeared arguably cognizable under § 2254 and warranted a response from the respondent. The court did not decide the merits of any claim.
Order
Judge Charles R. Breyer granted McNeally’s request to proceed without paying the filing fee. The clerk was directed to serve the order on the respondent and McNeally. C. Koenig was ordered to file and serve, within 60 days after issuance of the order, an answer complying with Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases and showing why the requested relief should not be granted. The respondent also had to provide relevant portions of the previously transcribed state trial record.
McNeally could respond to the answer by filing a traverse within 30 days after receiving it. The respondent could instead file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds in place of an answer, with the specified deadlines for McNeally’s opposition and the respondent’s reply. This order opened the federal case for a response; it was not a decision on whether McNeally is entitled to relief.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.