Rich v. Pfeiffer
- James Donato
- 3:22-cv-02087
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Rich v. Pfeiffer, Judge Donato dismissed unexhausted habeas claims and ordered a response to three exhausted claims.
Albert E. Rich’s federal challenge to his state-court custody: the court dismissed the claims it found unexhausted, while allowing three exhausted claims to proceed to a response from Christian Pfeiffer.
What happened
In Rich v. Pfeiffer, Albert E. Rich, a state prisoner representing himself, challenged his state convictions in federal court. A jury had found him guilty of thirteen felony offenses, and he received a sentence of 159 years to life.
The original petition raised fifteen claims, but the court found that only three appeared to have been presented to the state courts. Those claims concerned alleged prosecutorial misconduct, improper questioning of a witness, and the combined effect of those events. Rich chose to continue with those three claims, so the court dismissed the unexhausted claims from the petition.
The court found that the three remaining claims were sufficient to require a response. Judge Donato ordered the respondent to answer within 60 days, while allowing a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds instead. The order did not decide whether Rich’s claims were legally valid.
The detailed version
- Rich v. Pfeiffer · No. 3:22-cv-02087
- James Donato
- May 13, 2022
Background
Albert E. Rich, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a federal petition challenging his state-court custody under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. A jury found him guilty of thirteen felony offenses involving human trafficking for commercial sex, torture, and various sexual offenses. He was sentenced to 159 years to life. The California Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction, and the California Supreme Court denied review. Rich stated that he had filed no other appeals or state or federal habeas petitions.
Claims and exhaustion
The original petition asserted fifteen claims. The court determined that only three appeared to have been exhausted, meaning presented to the state courts through the available review process. The exhausted claims alleged that:
- The prosecutor committed misconduct and violated Rich’s right to confront witnesses by referring during opening arguments to statements from witnesses who did not testify.
- The prosecutor committed misconduct and violated Rich’s rights by asking improper questions of a witness.
- The combined effect of the prosecutor’s opening statement and the improper witness questioning violated Rich’s rights.
The court had previously dismissed the mixed petition with permission to amend. It told Rich that he could show that the other claims had been exhausted, proceed only with the exhausted claims and dismiss the others, or seek a stay. Rich responded that he wished to continue with the exhausted claims.
Ruling and next steps
The court dismissed the unexhausted claims from the petition. Construing the remaining three claims liberally, the court found them sufficient to require a response from the respondent. The court ordered the respondent to file and serve an answer within 60 days explaining why the federal writ should not be granted. The respondent may instead file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds within that same period. If an answer is filed, Rich may file a reply, called a traverse, within 28 days after receiving it. If a motion to dismiss is filed, Rich may respond within 28 days, and the respondent may reply within 14 days.
The order also directed service of the order on the California Attorney General and Rich, and reminded Rich to serve copies of court filings on the respondent’s counsel, keep the court informed of any address change, and comply with court orders. The opinion does not decide the merits of the three remaining claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.