Dunn v. Covello
- Robert Illman
- 5:21-cv-09036
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Dunn v. Covello, Judge Illman ordered a response to Keylen M. Dunn’s habeas claims, without deciding whether his conviction violated federal law.
Keylen M. Dunn and the respondent, Patrick Covello; the order also directs the California Attorney General to respond on the respondent’s behalf.
What happened
Dunn v. Covello concerns Keylen M. Dunn’s petition challenging his California convictions for second-degree murder with a knife and second-degree robbery. Dunn, a California prisoner representing himself, filed the petition under a federal law allowing challenges to state convictions. The California Court of Appeal upheld the judgment, and the California Supreme Court declined to review it.
Dunn raised claims about the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury on involuntary manslaughter, his ability to present that defense, the lack of a particular jury instruction, and the admission of evidence or prior crimes. The court found that, when read fairly, these claims were sufficient to require a response.
The court ordered the California Attorney General to respond within 56 days and provide relevant portions of the state trial record. The respondent may instead file a motion to dismiss based on procedural grounds. Dunn may file a reply, and the court warned that failing to follow its orders could lead to dismissal for failure to pursue the case. Judge Illman did not decide the merits of Dunn’s claims.
The detailed version
- Dunn v. Covello · No. 5:21-cv-09036
- Robert Illman
- Nov. 2, 2022
Background
Keylen M. Dunn, a California prisoner representing himself, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 seeking federal review of his state-court convictions. The opinion states that Dunn was convicted after a jury trial of second-degree murder with a knife and second-degree robbery. The California Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, and the California Supreme Court denied review. Dunn previously filed an amended petition that was dismissed with permission to amend; he then filed a second amended petition.
Claims
Dunn alleged that the trial court:
- failed to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of involuntary manslaughter; - prevented him from presenting an involuntary-manslaughter defense; - failed to give a pinpoint jury instruction; and - improperly admitted certain evidence or evidence of prior crimes.
The court said that, when liberally construed, these claims were sufficient to require a response. Federal habeas petitions must identify each ground for relief and the facts supporting it; the court explained that general notice of a claim is not enough.
Order
The court ordered the Clerk to serve the order and a consent form on the California Attorney General and to mail a copy to Dunn. The respondent must, within 56 days after the order’s issuance, file and serve an answer explaining why the requested writ should not be granted. The respondent must also provide relevant portions of the previously transcribed state trial record.
The respondent may file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds instead of an answer. If that occurs, Dunn may file an opposition or statement of non-opposition within 28 days after receiving the motion, and the respondent may file a reply within 14 days after receiving Dunn’s response. Dunn must serve his court communications on respondent’s counsel, keep the court informed of any address change, and comply with court orders. The order states that failure to do so may result in dismissal for failure to pursue the action.
Judge Robert M. Illman issued an order to show cause, meaning he required the respondent to explain why the requested relief should not be granted. The order did not decide whether Dunn’s convictions or the trial proceedings violated federal law.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.