Coleman v. People State of California
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:21-cv-00049
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Coleman v. People of California, Judge Gilliam denied as moot a request to amend a stayed habeas petition and left the case administratively closed.
Wendell Coleman, the self-represented state prisoner seeking federal review of his conviction, and the respondents in his habeas case.
What happened
In Wendell Coleman v. People of the State of California, et al., Wendell Coleman challenged his state conviction for stalking, online harassment, and violating probation terms in a petition asking for federal review. He was representing himself and had filed the petition under a law allowing federal challenges to state convictions.
The court had stayed the case so Coleman could first complete the required state-court review. While the case was pending, he filed another petition challenging the same conviction. The court treated that filing as a request to amend the original petition rather than as a separate petition.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. denied the request to amend as moot. The case remains stayed and administratively closed; if the California Supreme Court denies relief, Coleman must notify the court within 28 days and ask to reopen the case while showing that he has completed state-court review.
The detailed version
- Coleman v. People State of California · No. 4:21-cv-00049
- Haywood Gilliam
- Feb. 28, 2022
Background
Wendell Coleman, a state prisoner representing himself, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging a December 18, 2020 conviction in Napa County Superior Court. The challenged convictions were for stalking, online harassment, and violating the terms of probation.
The court previously stayed this case so Coleman could exhaust, or complete, his available state-court remedies as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b).
While the original case was pending, Coleman filed a separate habeas petition in the same court challenging the same conviction. Because a self-represented petitioner had already filed an earlier petition that remained pending, the court treated the later filing as a request for permission to amend the original petition rather than as an unauthorized second or successive petition. The separate proceeding was administratively closed, and its petition was filed in this action as the amendment request.
Ruling
Because this action was already stayed while Coleman pursued state-court remedies, the court denied as moot his request for leave to file an amended petition. The order terminates the motion listed as Docket No. 12.
The case remains stayed and administratively closed. The court instructed that, if the California Supreme Court denies Coleman relief and he wishes to continue, he must notify the court within 28 days of that decision and file a motion to reopen showing that he exhausted state-court remedies for the federal habeas claims in this proceeding.
Effect of the Order
The order did not decide whether Coleman’s conviction violated federal law. It resolved only the amendment request and maintained the existing stay and administrative closure.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.