White v. Matteson
- William Orrick
- 3:20-cv-05946
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In White v. Matteson, Judge Orrick found five habeas claims cognizable, dismissed two claims, and directed the respondent to respond.
Barry White’s federal habeas petition: five claims continue for further proceedings, while his witness-reliability and restitution claims were dismissed. The respondent must answer or file a procedural motion.
What happened
White v. Matteson concerns Barry White’s request for federal review of his state convictions for murder, attempted murder, and assault.
The court allowed five claims to proceed, including claims about defense counsel, jury selection, speedy trial, equal protection, and jury instructions. It dismissed claims challenging witness reliability and the restitution fine.
Judge William H. Orrick ordered the respondent to file an answer or a motion addressing procedural issues by February 13, 2023. The order did not decide the merits of the five remaining claims.
The detailed version
- White v. Matteson · No. 3:20-cv-05946
- William Orrick
- Nov. 29, 2022
Background
Barry White sought federal habeas relief, meaning a federal court order concerning allegedly unlawful custody, from his California state convictions. According to the state appellate opinion, a San Francisco County Superior Court jury found White guilty in 2017 of two counts of first-degree murder, seven counts of attempted premeditated murder, and six counts of assault with a firearm on a peace officer. The trial court sentenced him in 2018. His efforts to overturn the convictions in state court were unsuccessful.
Claims and screening
The court reviewed White’s second amended petition under the federal habeas statute and the rule requiring an initial review of such petitions. White alleged that:
- His defense counsel provided ineffective assistance.
- Darker-skinned people were excluded from the jury, violating his jury-trial rights.
- His right to a speedy trial was violated.
- His equal-protection rights as a youthful offender were violated because he was under 25 when the crimes occurred.
- The trial court failed to give appropriate jury instructions.
- Some witnesses lied or were unreliable.
- The restitution fine was unlawful.
The court held that Claims 1 through 5 were cognizable, meaning they stated claims that could be considered in federal habeas proceedings, and ordered those claims to proceed.
The court dismissed Claim 6. White did not connect his allegations about the witnesses to a specific constitutional violation, such as insufficient evidence. The court also explained that federal habeas courts generally defer to a jury’s credibility determinations when the trial record supports conflicting inferences.
The court dismissed Claim 7. It held that a challenge to restitution did not present a cognizable federal habeas claim because success would not void the convictions or reduce the sentence. It also held that a monetary fine was not a sufficient restraint on liberty to satisfy the requirement that the petitioner be in custody. White’s separate challenge to his custody did not allow the court to review the restitution claim through this habeas petition.
Order and classification
The court ordered the respondent to file, by February 13, 2023, either an answer addressing the five cognizable claims or a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds. The respondent also had to provide relevant portions of the transcribed state trial record. White could respond within 30 days after an answer or motion was filed. The court noted that White’s application to proceed without paying filing fees had been granted in an earlier order.
This was a procedural screening order, not a final decision on whether White should receive habeas relief. The court dismissed two claims at the initial review stage and allowed five claims to continue. Judge William H. Orrick signed the order.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.