Hajek v. Broomfield
- Beth Freeman
- 5:20-cv-02568
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 7
In Hajek v. Broomfield, Judge Freeman denied dismissal and granted a stay so Hajek could exhaust claims in state court.
Stephen Edward Hajek, his appointed counsel, and the respondent in the federal habeas case. The order requires Hajek’s counsel to pursue state-court exhaustion and requires Hajek to provide continuing reports to the federal court.
What happened
In Hajek v. Broomfield, the respondent argued that Stephen Edward Hajek’s federal petition should be dismissed because several claims had not been presented to state courts. Hajek asked the court to pause the case so he could pursue those claims in state court.
The court found that Hajek showed a reasonable explanation for failing to present the claims earlier, that at least one claim was not clearly meritless, and that he had not intentionally delayed the case. The court therefore denied the motion to dismiss and granted the motion for a stay.
Judge Freeman ordered Hajek’s counsel to file a state exhaustion petition within 90 days. Hajek must also provide status reports every 90 days while the state case continues and notify the federal court within 30 days after it ends.
The detailed version
- Hajek v. Broomfield · No. 5:20-cv-02568
- Beth Freeman
- Aug. 22, 2022
Background
Stephen Edward Hajek filed a federal petition challenging his state criminal case. The opinion states that Hajek and Loi Tan Vo were convicted in 1995 in Santa Clara County Superior Court of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. The California Supreme Court later affirmed the conviction and death sentence but reversed one special circumstance, and it denied Hajek’s state habeas petition on January 29, 2020.
Hajek filed his federal habeas petition on August 17, 2021. The parties agreed that claims 2, 3, 6, 7.C.3, 16.B, 19.C, 19.D, 19.E.4, 19.E.16, 23.A.2.b, 23.A.2.C, 24.B.2, 24.B.3, and 26.B.1 had not been exhausted in state court. Respondent moved to dismiss the petition because of those unexhausted claims. Hajek moved to stay, or pause, the federal case so he could return to state court and present them.
Legal standard
A federal habeas petition containing both exhausted and unexhausted claims is called a mixed petition. Under the standard described by the court, a stay may be granted when the petitioner shows good cause for the failure to exhaust, at least one unexhausted claim is potentially meritorious, and the petitioner has not intentionally used delaying tactics.
Court’s analysis
The court found good cause because Hajek presented evidence supporting his argument that state habeas counsel was ineffective for failing to raise claims that were apparent from the record. The court cited, among other examples, a jury-venire fairness claim and a claim alleging that the prosecution failed to preserve blood evidence under Vo’s fingernails.
The court also found that at least one unexhausted claim was not plainly meritless. It specifically discussed Hajek’s allegation that the prosecution failed to test and preserve blood evidence shown in photographs of Vo’s hands and concluded that the claim was supported by relevant legal authority and available evidence.
Finally, the court rejected the argument that Hajek had delayed the case merely because he had not yet filed his state exhaustion petition. The court stated that California law required him to first obtain a federal court ruling identifying the unexhausted claims. It found no evidence of intentional delay.
Ruling and required actions
The court denied respondent’s motion to dismiss and granted Hajek’s motion for a stay. The court ordered Hajek’s counsel to file a state exhaustion petition raising the listed claims within 90 days of the order. Hajek must file a federal-court status report 120 days after the order and every 90 days afterward until the state proceedings are complete. He must notify the federal court within 30 days after those proceedings end.
The order addressed exhaustion and the requirements for a stay; it did not decide whether Hajek’s underlying habeas claims should ultimately succeed.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.