Chavez v. Matteson
- Richard Seeborg
- 3:22-cv-02819
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Chavez v. Matteson, Judge Seeborg ordered a response to Chavez’s federal petition while noting that it appeared untimely.
The order affected Marcos R. Chavez’s federal petition challenging his state-court convictions and required Gigi Matteson, through the respondent’s counsel, to answer or file a procedural motion.
What happened
Marcos R. Chavez asked the federal court to review his 2016 Santa Cruz County Superior Court convictions and sentence. He alleged that his guilty plea was not knowing or voluntary, his defense lawyer was ineffective, and his sentence was unconstitutional and erroneous.
The court found that these claims could proceed past its initial review, but it also said the petition appeared to have been filed outside the one-year deadline for federal petitions challenging state convictions. The court did not decide whether the petition was actually late or whether Chavez should receive relief.
Judge Richard Seeborg ordered Gigi Matteson to file an answer by January 9, 2023, or instead file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds. Chavez could respond to either filing, and the case remained pending.
The detailed version
- Chavez v. Matteson · No. 3:22-cv-02819
- Richard Seeborg
- Aug. 29, 2022
Background
Marcos R. Chavez filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 seeking federal habeas relief, meaning federal review of whether a person is being held under a state-court judgment in violation of federal law. According to the petition, Chavez pleaded guilty in 2016 in the Santa Cruz County Superior Court to robbery, kidnapping, voluntary manslaughter, making terrorist threats, assault with great bodily injury, and committing a hate crime. The opinion states that challenges to the conviction in state court were unsuccessful.
Chavez raised three grounds for relief: that his guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary because he was not advised of his rights and was not given a waiver to sign and initial; that defense counsel provided ineffective assistance; and that his sentence was unconstitutional and erroneous.
Court’s Analysis
The court reviewed the petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2243 and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. It held that the claims were cognizable, meaning they were legally suitable for consideration in a federal habeas case, and allowed them to proceed.
The court also stated that the petition appeared untimely. Because Chavez was convicted in 2016 and filed the federal petition in 2022, the court noted that the filing was apparently outside § 2244(d)(1)’s one-year limitations period. The court did not make a final ruling that the petition was untimely. Instead, it directed the respondent to consider that issue first and said the respondent could, but did not have to, file a motion to dismiss on that basis.
Order
The court issued an order to show cause. It directed the respondent to file an answer by January 9, 2023, explaining why the requested relief should not be granted and providing relevant portions of the state trial record. In place of an answer, the respondent could file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds by the same date. Chavez could file a response within 30 days after the answer or motion was filed, and the respondent could file a reply within 15 days after an opposition to a motion was filed.
The court also instructed Chavez to serve his court communications on the respondent’s counsel, keep the court and respondent informed of any address change, and comply with court orders. It warned that failure to prosecute the case could lead to dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The court noted that the filing fee had been paid. The order did not grant or deny habeas relief and did not decide the merits of Chavez’s claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.