Maxstadt v. Pickett
- Edward Davila
- 5:20-cv-08059
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Maxstadt v. Pickett, Judge Illman ordered the respondent to explain why Ryan Joseph Maxstadt’s petition should not be granted, without deciding its merits.
Ryan Joseph Maxstadt and the respondent, Jason Pickett; the order also directs the California Attorney General’s Office to receive electronic service and requires the respondent to respond to the petition.
What happened
In Maxstadt v. Pickett, Ryan Joseph Maxstadt challenged his state conviction and sentence in a federal petition. He claimed that his trial lawyer was ineffective, that the evidence was insufficient, that the attempted-murder jury instruction was flawed, and that other trial decisions violated his rights.
The court found that the petition appeared to state a legally valid claim and ordered the respondent to explain why relief should not be granted. The respondent must file an answer and relevant state-court records within 60 days, or may file a motion to dismiss based on procedural grounds instead.
Judge Robert M. Illman issued the order on January 11, 2022. The order began the response process but did not decide whether Maxstadt is entitled to relief or whether his claims ultimately succeed.
The detailed version
- Maxstadt v. Pickett · No. 5:20-cv-08059
- Edward Davila
- Jan. 11, 2022
Background
Ryan Joseph Maxstadt sought relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 from his state conviction and sentence. The court explained that such a petition may proceed when a person is held in violation of the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties. At this initial stage, summary dismissal is appropriate only when the allegations are vague or conclusory, plainly incredible, frivolous, or false.
Claims
Maxstadt raised eight claims:
- His trial lawyer provided ineffective assistance by failing to present a gunshot-residue expert and evidence concerning the absence of gunshot residue on his hand, failing to use facts concerning the lack of a firearm and testimony about the sound of a gunshot, and failing to investigate gunshot residue.
- His firearm-offense convictions were not supported by sufficient evidence, based on issues involving dash-camera footage, the absence of shell casings, and the accessibility of a gun case in his vehicle.
- The trial evidence was insufficient to establish that he possessed a firearm or had the specific intent to kill.
- The trial court’s attempted-murder jury instruction improperly combined the requirements of taking a direct step and intending to kill.
- His trial lawyer failed to seek a change of venue despite what Maxstadt described as a reasonable likelihood that a fair trial was improbable in Mendocino County.
- His trial lawyer failed to remove at least one juror who was friends with the district attorney.
- His trial lawyer failed to challenge the court’s refusal to remove a juror.
- His trial lawyer improperly conceded during closing argument that Maxstadt possessed and discharged a firearm during the incident.
Ruling and next steps
The court stated that Maxstadt appeared to have presented a claim that could support relief and ordered the respondent to show cause why the petition should not be granted. This was not a decision on the merits of the eight claims.
The respondent must file and serve an answer within 60 days of the order’s filing date and provide relevant previously transcribed portions of the state criminal record. Maxstadt may respond with a written reply within 28 days after the answer is filed. Instead of an answer, the respondent may file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds within the same 60-day period. The order also warned that failure to prosecute the case or comply with court orders could lead to dismissal for failure to prosecute.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.