Dunn v. Covello
- Robert Illman
- 5:21-cv-09036
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Keylen M. Dunn v. Patrick Covello, Judge Illman dismissed Dunn’s habeas petition with leave to amend because its claims were unclear.
Keylen M. Dunn’s federal habeas case and his ability to pursue properly identified, exhausted claims through an amended petition.
What happened
Keylen M. Dunn v. Patrick Covello concerns a petition by Dunn, a California prisoner representing himself, seeking federal review of his state-court convictions. A jury convicted him of second-degree murder with a knife and second-degree robbery; the California Court of Appeal affirmed, and the California Supreme Court denied review.
Dunn identified two possible claims: that the trial court wrongly denied diversion with mental-health services under a new California law, and that it failed to instruct the jury on lesser included offenses. But his filing also contained fourteen handwritten pages and a petition filed in the California Supreme Court with six claims, leaving it unclear which claims he wanted to bring in federal court.
Judge Robert M. Illman dismissed the petition with leave to amend. The court required Dunn to list each claim separately and said he could proceed only on claims presented to the California Supreme Court. It also said the diversion claim should not be included because an alleged error under state law does not support federal habeas relief; Dunn had 28 days to file an amended petition.
The detailed version
- Dunn v. Covello · No. 5:21-cv-09036
- Robert Illman
- Mar. 25, 2022
Background
Keylen M. Dunn, a California prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition for a federal writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He paid the filing fee and consented to jurisdiction before a magistrate judge.
Dunn had been convicted after a jury trial of second-degree murder with a knife and second-degree robbery. The California Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, and the California Supreme Court denied review.
Claims and Analysis
Dunn identified two possible grounds for federal habeas relief: (1) the trial court allegedly erred by denying his request for diversion from prison with mental-health services under a new California law; and (2) the trial court allegedly failed to instruct the jury on lesser included offenses.
The court also found that Dunn’s filing included fourteen handwritten pages whose purpose was unclear. It was not clear whether those pages stated additional claims or supported the two identified claims. Dunn also attached his petition to the California Supreme Court, which listed six claims. Because the federal court could not determine which claims Dunn intended to present, it held that the petition did not satisfy the heightened pleading requirements for a federal habeas petition.
The court further stated that Dunn’s diversion claim did not state a federal claim. Federal habeas relief is not available for an alleged state-law error, and a federal habeas court cannot reexamine a state court’s interpretation and application of state law. The court instructed Dunn not to include that claim in an amended petition. It also stated that any claim in an amended petition had to have been exhausted by being presented to the California Supreme Court.
Disposition
Judge Robert M. Illman ordered that the petition be dismissed with leave to amend. Dunn was required to file an amended petition within 28 days after the order was served. The amended petition had to use the case caption and civil case number in the order, include the words “AMENDED PETITION” on its first page, and list each claim in a numbered list on one page before providing additional discussion. The order stated that failure to amend within the deadline would result in dismissal of the claims and that failure to comply with the court’s orders could result in dismissal of the action for failure to prosecute.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.