Hedgepeth v. Madden

Background

Hasson Hedgepeth, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his state conviction. The matter was initially dismissed after Hedgepeth failed to file a timely request to proceed without paying the filing fee, and it was later reopened after he submitted documents completing that request. The case was reassigned after the judge originally assigned to it recused herself.

On April 7, 2021, the court dismissed the petition but allowed Hedgepeth to amend it. The court had understood that a request for a new trial based on instructional error was pending in Alameda County Superior Court and concluded that Hedgepeth had not finished presenting all of his federal claims to the state courts. The court directed him to file an amended petition containing only exhausted claims and allowed him to seek a renewed stay to exhaust additional claims.

Claims and court’s analysis

Hedgepeth later stated that the two claims in his petition had been exhausted and referred to exhibits filed in the case. He also asked the court to treat his renewed motion for a stay as unnecessary. He then filed a motion to stay the matter while resentencing proceedings were pending in state court.

The court deemed the original petition and the later exhibits to be the operative petition. It identified two claims: that the trial court failed to instruct the jury on self-defense, sudden quarrel, or heat of passion, and that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the instructional issue on appeal. The court concluded that, liberally construed, these claims could be considered under Section 2254 and required an answer from the respondent. The court did not decide the merits of either claim.

Disposition

The court denied Hedgepeth’s motion for a stay as unnecessary because no further filing was needed from him. It ordered the clerk to serve the order on the respondent, the respondent’s attorney, and Hedgepeth. It ordered the respondent to file and serve an answer within 90 days, along with relevant previously transcribed portions of the state trial record. Hedgepeth could file a response within 30 days after receiving the answer. The order also states that Hedgepeth’s failure to comply with court orders could result in dismissal for failure to prosecute. The order terminated Docket No. 23.

What the order did not decide

This order required the respondent to answer Hedgepeth’s petition; it did not grant or deny habeas relief and did not resolve whether the state conviction or appellate proceedings violated federal law.