Gonzalez v. McDowell
- Richard Seeborg
- 3:22-cv-04057
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Gonzalez v. McDowell, Judge Seeborg found the habeas claims cognizable and ordered McDowell to respond.
The order affects Jose Francisco Gonzalez’s federal challenge to his state convictions, Neil McDowell as the remaining respondent, and Ironwood State Prison, which was terminated as a respondent.
What happened
Jose Francisco Gonzalez v. Neil McDowell concerns Gonzalez’s petition asking a federal court to review his state convictions. A state jury convicted him in 2018 of four offenses involving sexual conduct with a child, and his efforts in state court were unsuccessful.
Gonzalez raised two claims: that testimony about Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome lowered the prosecution’s burden of proof, and that using a particular jury instruction violated due process. The court determined that, when read generously, both claims could support federal habeas relief and could proceed.
Judge Richard Seeborg ordered McDowell to answer the petition or file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds. The court also granted Gonzalez permission to proceed without paying filing fees, terminated Ironwood State Prison as a respondent, and terminated all pending motions; it did not decide whether Gonzalez should receive habeas relief.
The detailed version
- Gonzalez v. McDowell · No. 3:22-cv-04057
- Richard Seeborg
- Dec. 1, 2022
Background
Jose Francisco Gonzalez filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 seeking federal habeas relief from state-court convictions. The opinion states that a San Francisco County Superior Court jury convicted him in 2018 of two counts of oral copulation or sexual penetration of a child, one count of committing a forcible lewd act on a child, and one count of committing a lewd act on a child. His efforts to challenge the convictions in state court were unsuccessful.
Claims
Gonzalez asserted two grounds for relief:
1. The state court admitted testimony concerning Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome, including testimony about the probability of false accusations. Gonzalez alleged that this testimony lowered the prosecution’s burden of proof. 2. The use of California jury instruction CALCRIM No. 1193 violated due process.
Court’s analysis
The court reviewed the petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2243 and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Under that review, summary dismissal is appropriate only when the allegations are vague or conclusory, plainly unbelievable, or clearly frivolous or false. The court liberally construed Gonzalez’s allegations and concluded that both claims were cognizable, meaning they were legally capable of being considered in a federal habeas proceeding. The claims therefore were allowed to proceed.
The court did not decide the merits of either claim or determine whether Gonzalez was entitled to habeas relief.
Other rulings and instructions
The court granted Gonzalez’s applications to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning without paying the filing fee. It directed the Clerk to terminate Ironwood State Prison as a respondent, leaving Neil McDowell as the sole respondent because the opinion identifies him as the warden and custodian with day-to-day control over Gonzalez.
The court ordered McDowell to file an answer by March 10, 2023, explaining why the writ should not be granted, and to provide relevant portions of the transcribed state trial record. Instead of an answer, McDowell could file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds by that date. Gonzalez could respond within 30 days after an answer or motion was filed, and McDowell could reply within 15 days after an opposition was filed. The court also terminated all pending motions and warned that failure to prosecute could result in dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.