Delmonico v. Bonta
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:21-cv-02009
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Delmonico v. Bonta, Judge Gilliam denied reopening because Delmonico had not exhausted state remedies, but allowed him to renew the request later.
Michael John Delmonico’s federal challenge to his state misdemeanor conviction remains stayed and was not reopened. He may submit a renewed request after exhausting state remedies.
What happened
Delmonico v. Bonta concerns Michael John Delmonico’s challenge to a 2018 misdemeanor conviction. Delmonico, who was representing himself, asked the court to lift a stay and reopen his federal challenge after the California Supreme Court rejected his filing.
The court explained that presenting claims to the California Supreme Court in that filing did not complete the required state-court process. Depending on the claim, Delmonico needed to use California’s direct-review process or state proceedings challenging the conviction after direct review. The court said the record did not show that he had done so.
Judge Gilliam denied the request to lift the stay and reopen the action, without prejudice to a renewed request after exhaustion. The court also said Delmonico should provide copies of his state-court briefing and the state court’s decision with any renewed request.
The detailed version
- Delmonico v. Bonta · No. 4:21-cv-02009
- Haywood Gilliam
- June 17, 2022
Background
Michael John Delmonico filed a self-represented petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging a 2018 misdemeanor conviction from Palo Alto Superior Court. The court had previously screened his third amended petition, dismissed two ineffective-assistance-of-counsel subclaims as unexhausted, and stayed the action under the King/Kelly procedure.
Delmonico later sent the court a letter stating that he had tried to file a petition for review in the California Supreme Court to exhaust his state remedies. The California Supreme Court rejected the filing under California Rule of Court 8.500(a). Delmonico believed the rejection showed that he had completed the state process and asked to lift the stay, reopen the action, and file a fourth amended petition.
Court’s reasoning
The court held that state remedies had not been exhausted. Exhaustion generally requires a person challenging a state conviction to present the relevant claims through the available state-court process before seeking federal review.
For a California misdemeanor, the court explained that direct review generally requires raising the claims in the Superior Court’s appellate division, requesting certification to transfer the case to the California Court of Appeal, and directly asking the Court of Appeal to order transfer. The Court of Appeal’s denial of transfer ends direct review. The court also explained that some claims, including ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims, must be raised through state collateral proceedings instead.
The court found nothing in the record showing that Delmonico had completed the required direct-review or collateral-review process. It specifically concluded that submitting a petition for review to the California Supreme Court under the state exhaustion procedure did not exhaust his state remedies.
Ruling
The court denied Delmonico’s request to lift the stay and reopen the action. The denial was without prejudice to filing a renewed request after exhausting state remedies. The court instructed him to attach the briefing submitted to the state courts and the state court’s decision with any renewed request. The order terminated docket entry 27.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.