Singh v. Attorney General of the State of California
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:21-cv-03351
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Singh v. Holbrook, Judge Gilliam granted a fee waiver, denied counsel, and ordered a response to Singh’s claims without deciding their merits.
Navjot Singh, Warden David Holbrook, and the Attorney General of the State of California as Holbrook’s attorney. Singh’s petition proceeds to a response stage, while his request for appointed counsel was denied without prejudice.
What happened
In Navjot Singh v. Warden David Holbrook, Singh, a state prisoner, challenged his conviction and sentence in a federal petition. The opinion says he was sentenced to 30 years to life, consecutive to three years, after a Santa Clara County jury convicted him of rape and other crimes. He had unsuccessfully appealed in state court and did not report filing a state petition challenging the conviction.
The court identified six claims that could potentially support federal relief: insufficient evidence for the kidnapping conviction; ineffective assistance of trial counsel; and several claims that the trial court improperly excluded evidence or limited questioning of the victim and expert testimony. The court did not decide whether any of these claims was valid. Instead, it ordered the respondent to respond and allowed a possible motion to dismiss on procedural grounds.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. granted Singh permission to proceed without paying the filing fee and denied his request for appointed counsel without prejudice. The court ordered Warden David Holbrook to file an answer within 91 days, along with relevant portions of the state trial record, or to file a procedural motion to dismiss instead. The order began the case’s review process; it did not grant or deny the requested relief on the conviction.
The detailed version
- Singh v. Attorney General of the State of California · No. 4:21-cv-03351
- Haywood Gilliam
- June 23, 2021
Background
Navjot Singh, an inmate at Chuckawalla State Prison, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. A habeas petition is a request for federal court relief from custody that allegedly violates federal law or the Constitution. The petition challenged a state-court conviction. According to the petition, Singh was sentenced on December 16, 2016, to 30 years to life, consecutive to three years, after a Santa Clara County jury convicted him of rape and other crimes. He unsuccessfully appealed to the state appellate court, and the California Supreme Court denied review. Singh did not report filing a state habeas petition.
The clerk substituted Warden David Holbrook for the previously named respondent because Holbrook was Singh’s current custodian. The Attorney General of the State of California was identified as the respondent’s attorney for service of the order.
Initial review and claims
The court reviewed the petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2243 and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. At this stage, the court determines whether the petition appears to state claims that could support federal relief and, if so, directs the respondent to explain why relief should not be granted.
Liberally construing Singh’s filing because he was representing himself, the court found six apparently cognizable claims. They were:
- The evidence was insufficient to support the kidnapping conviction.
- Trial counsel was ineffective for failing to seek admission of a statement by the victim relevant to consent.
- The trial court improperly excluded evidence that the victim had said she was “going to get laid” before leaving the residence.
- The trial court improperly excluded expert testimony about whether the victim had blacked out or been unconscious.
- The trial court improperly excluded evidence that the victim had falsely accused her ex-husband, Joel Levya, of using violence against her.
- The trial court improperly refused to allow impeachment of the victim with her involvement in a drug offense three months earlier, allegedly denying Singh his Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses.
The court noted that three of the nine grounds listed in the petition appeared duplicative. It therefore treated the petition as stating six claims. The court found that these claims appeared cognizable under Section 2254 and required a response, but it did not decide their merits.
Counsel request and other rulings
Singh requested appointed counsel, stating that some issues were difficult to understand because English was his second language. The court explained that there is no automatic constitutional right to counsel in a habeas case and that appointment is discretionary unless the circumstances require counsel to prevent a due-process violation. The court found that Singh had adequately presented his claims and appeared to be presenting arguments made in filings prepared with counsel during his state appeal and review proceedings. It therefore DENIED the request for appointment of counsel without prejudice to appointing counsel later if circumstances require.
The court GRANTED Singh’s request to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning without paying the filing fee.
Order to respond
The court ordered the respondent to file and serve an answer within 91 days explaining why the requested writ should not issue. The respondent must include relevant, previously transcribed portions of the state trial record. Alternatively, the respondent may file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds within the same 91-day period. If an answer is filed, Singh may file a reply within 35 days. If a motion to dismiss is filed, Singh’s opposition or statement of non-opposition is due within 28 days, and the respondent’s reply is due within 14 days after any opposition.
The order also instructed Singh to serve the respondent’s counsel with court communications, keep the court informed of address changes, and comply with court deadlines. It warned that failure to do so could result in dismissal for failure to prosecute. The order terminated the fee-waiver and counsel-request docket entries, Dkt. Nos. 2 and 3. It did not grant or deny habeas relief and did not resolve the validity of Singh’s conviction.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.