Carbajal v. The People
- James Donato
- 3:22-cv-01486
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Carbajal v. The People, Judge Donato granted fee-waiver status and ordered a response to the prisoner’s habeas claims without deciding their merits.
Alberto Hernandez Carbajal, who may proceed without paying the filing fee and whose petition will receive a response; The People, through the respondent and the California Attorney General, who must answer or seek dismissal on procedural grounds.
What happened
Alberto Hernandez Carbajal, a state prisoner, asked the federal court to review his state conviction after he was convicted of assaulting correctional officers during a prison riot. He received a sentence of 59 years to life in addition to a life sentence he was already serving.
The court identified three possible claims: insufficient evidence for one assault conviction, ineffective assistance by trial counsel, and denial of the opportunity to present certain expert witnesses. The court found these claims sufficient to require a response, but it did not decide whether any claim was valid.
On April 22, 2022, Judge James Donato granted Carbajal’s request to proceed without paying filing fees and ordered the respondent to answer within 60 days or file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds. The case therefore moved forward for further review.
The detailed version
- Carbajal v. The People · No. 3:22-cv-01486
- James Donato
- Apr. 22, 2022
Background
Alberto Hernandez Carbajal, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 asking the federal court to review his state-court custody. The opinion states that venue was proper because he was convicted in Del Norte County, which is in the Northern District of California.
Carbajal was convicted of 16 assault counts involving attacks on eight correctional officers during a riot at Pelican Bay State Prison. He was sentenced to 59 years to life, consecutive to a life sentence he was already serving. The California Court of Appeal found insufficient evidence for eight counts but affirmed the remaining convictions, and the California Supreme Court denied review.
Claims Identified by the Court
The court liberally construed Carbajal’s petition as raising three claims:
- The evidence was insufficient to support his assault conviction involving Officer McCully.
- Trial counsel was ineffective for failing to timely disclose to the prosecution that an expert witness would testify.
- The trial court violated Carbajal’s ability to prepare a defense by refusing to allow him to call experts concerning corrections and the effects of pepper spray.
The court held that, as understood, these claims were sufficient to require a response. It did not decide the merits of the claims.
Order
The court granted Carbajal’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning he could proceed without paying the filing fee. The clerk was directed to serve the order on the California Attorney General and Carbajal.
The respondent was ordered to file an answer within 60 days showing why the requested writ should not be granted. The respondent also had to provide relevant portions of the previously transcribed state trial record. Carbajal could file a written response within 28 days after receiving the answer.
The respondent was permitted to file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds instead of an answer. If such a motion were filed, Carbajal’s opposition or statement of non-opposition would be due within 28 days, and the respondent’s reply would be due within 14 days after receiving any opposition. The order also reminded Carbajal to serve his filings on the respondent, keep the court informed of address changes, and comply with court orders.
Disposition and Classification
The court granted the fee-waiver motion and issued an order requiring the respondent to show cause why relief should not be granted. This was an initial procedural order; the court did not grant or deny the habeas petition and did not resolve the underlying constitutional claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.