Cisneros v. Robertson

Background

Miguel A. Cisneros, an inmate at Salinas Valley State Prison, filed a self-represented federal petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The petition raised three claims: that the trial court improperly admitted evidence of a prior uncharged robbery, that insufficient evidence supported his kidnapping conviction in connection with a carjacking, and that the trial court gave an improper jury instruction under California law.

On February 9, 2022, the court denied Jim Robertson’s motion to dismiss the petition as untimely but granted the motion to dismiss because the claims were procedurally defaulted. Procedural default generally prevents a federal court from reviewing a claim when the state court rejected it based on an independent and adequate state procedural rule. The court also denied a certificate of appealability and entered judgment for Robertson.

Post-Judgment Motions

Cisneros filed four post-judgment motions. They sought reconsideration of the dismissal, relief from the judgment, and an evidentiary hearing. He argued, among other things, that dismissal caused a miscarriage of justice, that he was actually innocent, that disability or limited understanding prevented him from following legal procedures, that his claims had merit, and that an instructional error affected the entire trial.

The court collectively treated the filings as requests under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), which permits a party to ask the court to alter or amend a judgment, and Rule 60(b)(6), which permits relief from a final judgment in extraordinary circumstances not covered by the rule’s other provisions.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that most of Cisneros’s arguments did not address the issue that had controlled the earlier dismissal: procedural default. The court said that arguments about the merits of his claims, alleged structural error, equitable tolling, disability, expedited resolution, and his lack of understanding of filing requirements did not show that the court had erred in finding procedural default.

The court also rejected arguments that the California courts had incorrectly applied the Dixon and Lindley procedural bars. It stated that, in deciding whether a claim was procedurally defaulted, the federal court could determine only whether the state decision rested on a state-law ground independent of the federal question and adequate to support the judgment. It further stated that the California Supreme Court’s ruling on the state habeas petition could not be relitigated in the federal district court.

The court concluded that Cisneros had not shown cause and prejudice sufficient to excuse the default. It stated that he had not shown that an outside factor prevented him or his appellate counsel from raising the claims on direct appeal. It also held that his inability to understand the law could not establish cause and that he could not rely on alleged ineffective assistance by appellate counsel because he had not presented that ineffective-assistance claim independently to the state courts.

The court also rejected the claimed miscarriage-of-justice exception. It explained that this exception requires new reliable evidence supporting actual innocence that was not presented at trial. The court found that Cisneros had not provided such evidence. It also stated that his arguments about instructional error and insufficient kidnapping evidence repeated his habeas claims rather than establishing actual innocence, and that it was unclear what later change in the legal classification of his crimes he was referring to.

Disposition

The court denied Cisneros’s motion for reconsideration or to alter or amend the judgment under Rule 59(e). It also denied relief under Rule 60(b), finding no newly discovered evidence, clear error, intervening change in law, or manifest injustice. The order’s conclusion states that Cisneros’s motions seeking relief from judgment under Rules 59 and 60 are denied, that the case remains closed, and that the order terminates Docket Nos. 34 through 37.

The court further explained that, because Cisneros filed post-judgment motions under Rules 59 and 60, the 30-day period for filing a notice of appeal runs from the date of this order.