Royal v. Koenig
- Vince Chhabria
- 3:21-cv-01388
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Royal v. Koenig, Judge Chhabria dismissed one habeas claim with prejudice and ordered a response on Royal’s judicial-bias claim.
Martin Demment Royal’s resentencing claim was dismissed with prejudice, while his judicial-bias claim remains pending for further proceedings against Craig Koenig.
What happened
Royal v. Koenig concerns Martin Demment Royal’s petition challenging the state courts’ denial of resentencing under California Penal Code section 1170.91. Royal, who is representing himself, raised claims about judicial bias and his eligibility for resentencing.
The court dismissed the resentencing claim with prejudice because it raised only state-law issues outside the federal habeas court’s jurisdiction. The court found that the judicial-bias claim was a valid federal constitutional claim, but it did not decide whether Royal was entitled to relief on that claim.
Respondent must file an answer or a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds within 60 days, and Royal may respond. Judge Chhabria issued the order on May 28, 2021.
The detailed version
- Royal v. Koenig · No. 3:21-cv-01388
- Vince Chhabria
- May 28, 2021
Background
Martin Demment Royal, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He challenged the state courts’ denial of his request for resentencing under California Penal Code section 1170.91. His petition raised two claims: (1) the trial court was biased against him because he had been convicted of sexual offenses; and (2) he had made a sufficient showing to qualify for resentencing under section 1170.91.
Ruling
The court dismissed claim two, the resentencing claim, with prejudice because amendment would be futile. The court explained that the claim involved state law, while federal habeas relief under section 2254 is limited to violations of the United States Constitution, federal law, or treaties. The court therefore held that it had no jurisdiction over that claim.
The court determined that claim one, the judicial-bias claim, was a legally recognizable federal constitutional claim. The court did not decide whether Royal had proved judicial bias or whether he was entitled to habeas relief.
Next steps ordered by the court
The court ordered the respondent to file an answer addressing why a writ of habeas corpus should not issue on the judicial-bias claim within 60 days. The respondent may instead file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds. If an answer is filed, Royal may respond within 30 days after receiving it. If a motion to dismiss is filed, Royal may file an opposition or statement of non-opposition, and the respondent may reply.
The court also directed the respondent to provide relevant portions of the previously transcribed state-court record. Royal was responsible for prosecuting the case, keeping the court informed of address changes, and serving the respondent’s lawyer with copies of his court filings. Judge Vince Chhabria signed the order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.