Guerrero v. Matterson
- William Orrick
- 3:20-cv-05923
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Guerrero v. Matterson, Judge Orrick found Guerrero’s habeas claims cognizable and ordered the respondent to answer or file a procedural dismissal motion.
Richard Orestes Guerrero’s federal challenge to his state convictions proceeds to the response stage. G. Matterson, the respondent, must file an answer or a procedural motion by July 1, 2022.
What happened
In Guerrero v. Matterson, the court reviewed Richard Orestes Guerrero’s amended petition challenging his state convictions. Guerrero had pleaded no contest to voluntary manslaughter, assault with a firearm, and a gang sentencing enhancement, and his state-court efforts to overturn the convictions had failed.
The court found that Guerrero’s claims—that his plea was not knowing and voluntary and that his defense lawyer provided ineffective assistance—could be considered in federal court. It allowed the case to proceed to the next stage but did not decide whether Guerrero should receive relief.
Judge Orrick ordered G. Matterson to respond by July 1, 2022, either by filing an answer addressing the claims or by filing a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds. Guerrero could respond to either filing.
The detailed version
- Guerrero v. Matterson · No. 3:20-cv-05923
- William Orrick
- Mar. 22, 2022
Background
Richard Orestes Guerrero sought federal habeas relief, meaning a federal court order concerning allegedly unlawful custody under a state-court judgment. According to the original petition, Guerrero pleaded nolo contendere, or no contest, in 2018 in the Santa Clara County Superior Court to charges of voluntary manslaughter, assault with a firearm, and a gang sentencing enhancement. His attempts to overturn the convictions in state court were unsuccessful.
The court had previously dismissed Guerrero’s original petition with leave to amend because, after a guilty or no-contest plea, the petition needed to challenge the plea’s knowing and voluntary nature or the adequacy of counsel’s advice. Guerrero then filed a first amended petition.
Court’s Analysis
The court reviewed the amended petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2243 and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Those provisions require an initial review of a state-prisoner’s federal petition and permit summary dismissal when the allegations are vague, conclusory, incredible, frivolous, or false.
Guerrero alleged that his plea was not knowing and voluntary and that defense counsel provided ineffective assistance. The court held that, when read liberally, these were cognizable claims—claims that could be considered in a federal habeas proceeding. The court did not decide the ultimate merits of either claim.
Order and Effect
The court ordered the respondent to file, by July 1, 2022, either an answer showing why relief should not be granted or a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds. If an answer were filed, the respondent also had to provide relevant portions of the previously transcribed state-trial record, and Guerrero could file a response within 30 days. If a dismissal motion were filed, Guerrero could oppose it or state that he did not oppose it, and the respondent could file a reply.
The order also directed service of the order and petition, reminded Guerrero of his responsibilities to serve filings and keep the court informed of address changes, and noted that the filing fee had been paid. This order allowed the amended petition to proceed; it did not grant or deny habeas relief.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.