Lacy v. Miyamoto
- Haywood Gilliam
- 3:21-cv-03377
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 6
In Lacy v. Miyamoto, Judge Gilliam granted the motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust and required the prisoner to choose among three options.
Roy Donovan Lacy, the state prisoner who filed the federal petition, had to choose how to proceed because one claim had not been presented to the state courts. The respondent’s motion to dismiss was granted.
What happened
In Lacy v. Miyamoto, a state prisoner challenged his convictions and sentence through a federal petition. The petition raised claims about statements admitted at trial and ineffective assistance of trial counsel.
The court found that the first two claims had been presented to California courts, but the ineffective-assistance claim had not. Because prisoners generally must present each federal claim to the state courts before seeking federal relief, the petition could not proceed with all three claims.
Judge Gilliam granted the motion to dismiss and required the prisoner to choose whether to drop the unexhausted claim, dismiss this case and return to state court, or ask for a stay while exhausting the claim. The court did not decide the merits of the claims.
The detailed version
- Lacy v. Miyamoto · No. 3:21-cv-03377
- Haywood Gilliam
- Feb. 11, 2022
Background
Roy Donovan Lacy, identified as a state prisoner, filed a federal petition challenging his state custody under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The petition asserted three claims: (1) a violation of the rule requiring warnings before custodial questioning; (2) improper admission of a statement made in a separate case; and (3) ineffective assistance of trial counsel.
The respondent moved to dismiss for failure to exhaust state remedies. Lacy did not oppose the motion. The opinion states that Lacy presented the first two claims to the California Supreme Court, which denied review, but the record did not show that he presented the ineffective-assistance claim to the state courts. Lacy also acknowledged in his petition that he had not previously presented Claim No. 3.
Court’s Analysis
Federal law generally requires a state prisoner to give the highest available state court a fair opportunity to decide each federal claim before seeking federal relief. Because the petition included both exhausted and unexhausted claims, the court treated it as a mixed petition and concluded that it could not adjudicate the petition as filed.
The court noted that dismissal could create problems under the one-year deadline for federal habeas petitions. It therefore did not order an outright dismissal of the action at that point. Instead, it gave Lacy three choices: (1) dismiss the unexhausted ineffective-assistance claim and proceed with the first two claims; (2) dismiss this action, return to state court to exhaust Claim No. 3, and later file a new federal petition presenting all claims; or (3) move to stay these proceedings while exhausting Claim No. 3 in state court.
Ruling
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. granted the respondent’s motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust state remedies. Within 28 days of the order, Lacy was required to file a notice selecting one of the first two options or to file a motion for a stay; a stay motion had to be filed within 30 days and had to satisfy the requirements described by the court. If Lacy did not make a choice or file the required motion by the deadline, the court stated that it would dismiss Claim No. 3 and issue a separate order concerning Claims Nos. 1 and 2. The court did not decide the merits of any claim.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.