Nelson v. Robertson

Background

William Lloyd Nelson, representing himself, filed a federal petition challenging his state conviction under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The state courts had denied his direct and collateral challenges. The respondent moved to dismiss some claims because Nelson had not first presented them to the state courts, a requirement known as exhaustion.

The court previously found that Nelson’s petition contained both exhausted and unexhausted claims. It granted in part and denied in part the respondent’s dismissal motion and ordered Nelson to choose how to proceed. Nelson then moved for reconsideration, arguing that he had exhausted all of his claims.

Reconsideration Granted in Part

The court reconsidered its earlier exhaustion ruling as to Claims 4(a), 4(b), 4(d)–(f), 6, and 8. The court explained that exhaustion required Nelson to give the California Supreme Court a full and fair opportunity to resolve the constitutional issues. Because Nelson was representing himself, the court liberally construed his state-court filings.

Under that approach, the court concluded that Nelson had sufficiently presented Claims 4(a), 4(b), 4(d)–(f), 6, and 8 to the California Supreme Court, even though some appeared as arguments supporting other grounds rather than as separately labeled claims. Claim 4 concerned alleged failures to disclose impeachment evidence. Claim 6 concerned trial counsel’s alleged failure to file a timely motion to suppress evidence. Claim 8 concerned an alleged denial of a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense.

The court therefore granted reconsideration as to Claims 4(a), 4(b), 4(d)–(f), 6, and 8. It stated that this ruling was made in the interests of justice and did not find that Nelson had met the ordinary requirements for reconsideration under Civil Local Rule 7-9(b)(3).

Reconsideration Denied in Part

The court denied reconsideration as to Claims 1d, 2, 4(c), and 7(c). It concluded that the state-court grounds identified by Nelson did not fairly present the same issues as these federal claims.

Specifically, the court found that the state-court ground cited for Claim 1d did not allege that a conspiracy between the prosecution and defense counsel compromised cross-examination. The ground cited for Claim 2 did not allege a conspiracy to elicit false testimony at trial. Nelson did not identify where Claim 4(c), concerning alleged suppression of letters, a deed, an escrow document, and bank records, was presented to the California Supreme Court. The ground cited for Claim 7(c) concerned ineffective assistance at sentencing, not ineffective assistance during proceedings involving a motion for a new trial.

Required Election

Because the petition still included unexhausted claims, the court required Nelson to choose among three options: (1) dismiss the entire action, return to state court to exhaust all claims, and then file a new federal petition; (2) dismiss the unexhausted claims and proceed in this action only with the specified exhausted claims; or (3) file a motion asking the court to stay the case while he exhausts the remaining claims in the California Supreme Court.

The court set November 14, 2022, as the deadline for Nelson’s election. If he did not make a choice by then, the court stated that it would assume he chose the second option and would dismiss the action so he could exhaust his claims in state court. The order disposed of Docket No. 41; it did not decide the merits of Nelson’s constitutional claims.