Yu v. Ndoh

Background

Respondent Rosemary Ndoh moved to dismiss Daniel Yu’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus, a request for federal review of a state-court conviction or custody. Ndoh argued that Yu had procedurally defaulted—that is, failed to properly present in state court—two of his three claims. Yu conceded that he had not presented those claims to the California Supreme Court and that the time to do so had expired.

Court’s analysis

Yu argued that dismissal would cause a fundamental miscarriage of justice. The court explained that an exception to procedural default is available only in extraordinary circumstances, when new reliable evidence shows that a constitutional violation probably resulted in the conviction of someone who is actually innocent. The petitioner must show that, considering all the evidence, it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court found that Yu did not meet that demanding standard. He provided no new or other evidence plausibly showing actual innocence. He also did not argue or demonstrate that inadequate assistance by counsel during state post-conviction proceedings, or another objective outside factor, prevented him or his lawyer from properly exhausting the claims in state court.

Rulings

The court dismissed the petition and granted leave to file an amended petition containing only the unexhausted claim. The amended petition was due by October 1, 2021. The court stated that an unexcused failure to meet that deadline would result in dismissal with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), meaning the dismissal would bar refiling.

The court denied Yu’s alternative request for a stay and abeyance, which would have paused the federal case to allow exhaustion of state remedies. Because Yu conceded that the time for pursuing state-court review of the challenged claims had expired, the court found no possibility that he could now exhaust those remedies.