Brewer v. Supreme Court Of California
- William Orrick
- 3:22-cv-01777
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Brewer v. Supreme Court of California, Judge Orrick dismissed Brewer’s later petition challenging his convictions and ruled on related motions.
Kevin Dean Brewer, also identified as Michael Green, was affected by dismissal of his later petition challenging his state convictions; the Supreme Court of California received judgment in its favor.
What happened
Brewer v. Supreme Court of California involved a petition challenging the same 2009 state convictions that Brewer had challenged in four earlier petitions in this district. The convictions involved sexual abuse and sexual assault of a child, and Brewer received a sentence of 61 years to life.
The court said this was a later petition challenging the same convictions. Federal law requires permission from the appeals court before a later petition may be filed, and Brewer had not shown that he received that permission. The court therefore did not consider the petition’s underlying claims.
Judge William Orrick dismissed the petition as later and unauthorized, granted Brewer’s motion to file an amended petition, denied his motion to join additional claims, and granted his requests to proceed without paying filing fees. The court also declined to issue a certificate of appealability, entered judgment for the respondent, and closed the case.
The detailed version
- Brewer v. Supreme Court Of California · No. 3:22-cv-01777
- William Orrick
- Apr. 22, 2022
Background
Kevin Dean Brewer, also identified in the caption as Michael Green, filed a petition challenging his 2009 state convictions for sexual abuse and sexual assault of a child. The opinion states that he received a sentence of 61 years to life. Brewer had already filed four related petitions in this district challenging the same convictions. The first was denied on the merits. The three later petitions were dismissed as second or successive, meaning they were later petitions challenging convictions that had already been challenged in an earlier petition.
The opinion states that appeals from those earlier proceedings were terminated after the appeals court found the first appeal untimely or denied requests for a certificate of appealability. The United States Supreme Court also denied Brewer’s petition for review from the fourth proceeding.
Reason for Dismissal
The court applied 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A), which requires a petitioner to obtain authorization from the appeals court before filing a second or successive petition in the district court. Because Brewer had not shown that the appeals court authorized this petition, the court held that the petition was barred and dismissed it. The court did not decide the underlying challenges to Brewer’s convictions.
Other Motions and Disposition
The court granted Brewer’s motion to file an amended petition; the amended petition appeared as docket entry 7. The court denied his motion for joinder, which the opinion describes as a request to add claims without filing an amended petition. The court granted his motions to proceed without paying filing fees.
The court stated that a certificate of appealability would not issue because Brewer had not shown that reasonable judges could debate whether the petition stated a valid constitutional claim or whether the court was correct in its procedural ruling. Judge William Orrick ordered the clerk to terminate the pending motions, enter judgment for the respondent, and close the case.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.