Gutierrez v. Gastelo
- Yvonne Rogers
- 4:20-cv-06805
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Gutierrez v. Samuel, Judge Rogers reopened the habeas case, dismissed unexhausted claims, and ordered a response on the remaining due-process claim.
Jose Elias Gutierrez and Danny Samuel, the respondent identified as the current acting warden.
What happened
In Gutierrez v. Samuel, Jose Elias Gutierrez, representing himself, challenged fines and assessments imposed without an ability-to-pay determination. The court had previously dismissed the case after he did not choose whether to pursue or pause claims that had not been presented to the California Supreme Court.
Gutierrez later said he had not received the court’s earlier orders and chose to proceed only with his exhausted due-process claim. The court treated his letter as a request to reopen the case, granted that request, and dismissed the claims concerning new evidence and ineffective assistance of counsel.
Judge Rogers vacated the earlier judgment and dismissal order, reopened the case, and directed the respondent to answer or file a procedural motion concerning the remaining due-process claim. The court did not decide that claim’s merits.
The detailed version
- Gutierrez v. Gastelo · No. 4:20-cv-06805
- Yvonne Rogers
- May 23, 2022
Background
Jose Elias Gutierrez filed this state-prisoner case without a lawyer, seeking federal review of his claims. The initial review found that his claims concerning new evidence and ineffective assistance of counsel had not been presented to the California Supreme Court. Because the petition therefore contained both exhausted and unexhausted claims, the court directed Gutierrez to choose among dismissing the entire petition, dismissing the unexhausted claims and proceeding with the exhausted claim, or seeking a stay while exhausting the claims in state court.
After Gutierrez did not make a timely choice, even after receiving an extension, the court dismissed the action on February 3, 2022. Gutierrez later wrote that he had never received the earlier orders or the documents asking him to make the choice. In his April 12, 2022 letter, he elected to proceed only with his exhausted claim.
Ruling
The court construed the April 12 letter as a motion to reopen the action and granted it. The action was reopened, and the court vacated the judgment and the order of dismissal without prejudice. The claims concerning new evidence and ineffective assistance of counsel were dismissed from the action.
The remaining claim alleges that the trial court violated Gutierrez’s due-process rights under the California and federal Constitutions by imposing fines and assessments without first determining his ability to pay. The court stated that the claim appeared to be exhausted and did not appear meritless on the face of the petition, but it did not decide the claim.
Next steps ordered
The respondent was ordered to file an answer showing cause why the writ should not be granted as to the remaining due-process claim within 60 days. The respondent could instead file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds. The order also set deadlines for Gutierrez’s response, required service of court communications on opposing counsel, directed Gutierrez to keep the court informed of address changes, and substituted Danny Samuel, the current acting warden identified in the order, as respondent.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.