Dos Santos v. People of California
- James Donato
- 3:21-cv-04224
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Oliveira Dos Santos v. Napa State Hospital, Judge Donato dismissed the petition without prejudice because state remedies were not exhausted and conditions claims belonged in a civil-rights case.
Oliveira Dos Santos, whose federal habeas petition and confinement-conditions claims were dismissed without prejudice; the order left open a later federal petition after state-court review and a separate civil-rights action.
What happened
In Oliveira Dos Santos v. Napa State Hospital, Oliveira Dos Santos filed a petition asking a federal court to review his state custody and conditions at Napa State Hospital. He represented himself and was allowed to proceed without paying filing fees.
The court said claims challenging the fact or length of confinement must be brought through a federal habeas petition after presenting each claim to the highest available state court. Oliveira Dos Santos had presented claims to the Ninth Circuit and the State Bar of California, but not to a state court. The court also said claims about confinement conditions may be brought in a separate civil-rights case rather than through habeas.
Judge James Donato dismissed the action without prejudice, allowing a future federal petition after the California Supreme Court rules on the claims and allowing a separate civil-rights action about confinement conditions. The court denied a certificate of appealability and directed the Clerk to close the case.
The detailed version
- Dos Santos v. People of California · No. 3:21-cv-04224
- James Donato
- July 8, 2021
Background
Oliveira Dos Santos, a patient at Napa State Hospital, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the federal law allowing a person in state custody to seek relief for a violation of federal constitutional or statutory rights. He represented himself. The opinion says he was convicted in San Mateo County, making venue proper in the Northern District of California.
The petition sought relief concerning both the conditions of his confinement and his underlying conviction.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that habeas proceedings are used to challenge the lawfulness of custody or claims that would necessarily result in immediate or faster release. By contrast, a claim about the circumstances or conditions of confinement may be brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a civil-rights statute, when success would not necessarily shorten the person’s confinement.
The court found that Oliveira Dos Santos had not exhausted his habeas claims in state court. Before seeking federal habeas relief, a person in state custody generally must give the highest available state court a fair opportunity to consider each claim. According to the opinion, Oliveira Dos Santos had presented claims only to the Ninth Circuit and the State Bar of California, not to a state court. The court therefore dismissed the habeas action without prejudice and stated that he may file a federal petition after the California Supreme Court has ruled on his claims.
The court separately dismissed the confinement-conditions claims without prejudice and stated that Oliveira Dos Santos may file a separate civil-rights action. The court said such an action must identify specific defendants and explain how they violated his constitutional rights; merely stating that he could not file a grievance would not be enough information.
Disposition
Judge James Donato permitted Oliveira Dos Santos to proceed without paying filing fees, but dismissed the action without prejudice. The court denied a certificate of appealability and directed the Clerk to close the case.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.