Delmonico v. Bonta

Background

Michael John Delmonico filed a petition seeking federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his 2018 misdemeanor conviction for disorderly conduct under California Penal Code § 647(a). The Palo Alto Superior Court sentenced him to 12 days in county jail. He stated that he was not confined pending his appeal and was on formal probation.

The state appellate division denied his appeal on December 7, 2020, and the state court denied his petition for transfer on February 11, 2021. Delmonico filed this federal petition on or about March 20, 2021. He represented himself and paid the filing fee.

Claims and Analysis

Delmonico identified two claims. First, he alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel and referred to a 20-page attachment discussing the respondent’s appellate brief. The attachment described alleged problems with trial counsel and weaknesses in the prosecution’s case, but did not clearly identify each specific act or omission that supposedly constituted ineffective assistance.

Second, Delmonico alleged that he was not given a Miranda warning before interrogation. The court concluded that, when read generously, this claim could support federal habeas relief. The court did not decide whether the claim was ultimately meritorious.

The court dismissed the petition because the ineffective-assistance claim was not stated with sufficient specific facts. It instructed Delmonico that an amended petition must list each specific instance of alleged ineffective assistance and provide supporting facts. Claims could not be included merely by referring to another document. The court also explained that any claims challenging custody must generally first be presented to the highest available state court, giving that court a fair opportunity to decide each claim.

Disposition

The court ordered the clerk to substitute California Attorney General Matthew Rodriquez as respondent because the opinion identifies him as Delmonico’s current custodian. The court dismissed the petition with leave to amend and required an amended petition within 28 days of the order. The amended petition had to use the caption and case number in the order, include the words “AMENDED PETITION” on its first page, contain all claims Delmonico wished to pursue, and not incorporate the prior petition by reference. The order stated that failure to comply could result in dismissal for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

This was a procedural dismissal: the court required clearer pleading and did not decide the merits of Delmonico’s federal claims.