Delmonico v. Bonta
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:21-cv-02009
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Delmonico v. Bonta, Judge Gilliam dismissed two unexhausted subclaims, granted a stay, and administratively closed the habeas case pending state proceedings.
Michael John Delmonico, the petitioner, may continue pursuing state-court review and may later ask the federal court to lift the stay; Rob Bonta is the respondent. The federal case remains paused and administratively closed.
What happened
Michael John Delmonico challenged his 2018 misdemeanor disorderly-conduct conviction through a federal petition. He raised claims about his trial lawyer’s handling of a defense witness and about questioning without Miranda warnings.
The court dismissed two parts of the ineffective-assistance claim because they had not been presented to the state courts. It found two other claims exhausted and allowed them to remain: the claim about calling the witness without vetting him and the Miranda claim.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. granted Delmonico’s request to stay the case, paused the federal proceedings, and administratively closed the file. The order did not decide whether the remaining claims would succeed.
The detailed version
- Delmonico v. Bonta · No. 4:21-cv-02009
- Haywood Gilliam
- Mar. 21, 2022
Background
Michael John Delmonico filed a federal petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging a 2018 misdemeanor disorderly-conduct conviction from the Santa Clara County Superior Court. He received a 12-day county-jail sentence, three years of probation with sex-offender terms, and a requirement to register on the sex-offender registry.
The third amended petition raised two general grounds. First, Delmonico alleged that trial counsel was ineffective for calling Nicolas Pittet as a defense witness without vetting him or informing Delmonico beforehand, and for failing to introduce a written report prepared by Pittet. Second, he alleged that he was questioned while in custody without receiving Miranda warnings, violating his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.
Screening and Exhaustion
At the screening stage, the court found that the petition stated two claims that could be considered under federal habeas law: the ineffective-assistance claim based on calling Pittet without vetting him, and the Miranda claim.
The court determined that the additional ineffective-assistance allegations—failure to introduce Pittet’s written report and failure to inform Delmonico beforehand that counsel would call Pittet—had not been presented to the state courts. Because state remedies had not been exhausted for those subclaims, the court dismissed them. The court stated that the two remaining claims were exhausted.
Stay and Disposition
Delmonico requested a King/Kelly stay. This procedure allows a federal habeas case containing exhausted claims to be paused while the petitioner pursues additional claims in state court, after which the newly exhausted claims may potentially be added to the federal case if they satisfy applicable requirements.
The court GRANTED the request for a King/Kelly stay. It STAYED and ABEYED the action and directed that the case remain paused while Delmonico pursued state-court review. If he was not granted relief in state court, he could ask the federal court to lift the stay and consider the petition on the merits. The court did not decide the merits of the two remaining claims.
The clerk was directed to ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE the file while the stay was in effect. The court explained that administrative closure was only a statistical procedure and had no legal effect. The order terminated the request for a stay docketed as Dkt. No. 24.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.