Calderon v. Bonta
- Beth Freeman
- 5:22-cv-03487
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 6
In Calderon v. Bonta, Judge Freeman dismissed two groups of claims without prejudice, required a timeliness response, and granted a fee waiver.
Juan Carlos Calderon’s federal petition was partly dismissed: grounds (3) and (4) were dismissed without prejudice, while the court required the respondent to address whether the remaining petition was timely. Calderon was also granted permission to proceed without paying filing fees.
What happened
In Calderon v. Bonta, Juan Carlos Calderon, a California prisoner representing himself, filed a federal petition challenging his state-court conviction and imprisonment. He raised four groups of claims, including complaints about his trial and appeal, prison conditions, health care, and alleged mistreatment.
The court dismissed the third and fourth groups of claims without prejudice because they challenged prison conditions rather than the legality or length of his imprisonment. The court said those claims could instead be brought in a civil-rights case under federal law. The court did not yet decide whether the remaining claims could proceed because it identified a possible one-year filing deadline problem.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman ordered the respondent to file a motion arguing that the petition was too late, or to tell the court that such a motion was unwarranted. The court granted Calderon permission to proceed without paying filing fees and ended the other related motions as moot.
The detailed version
- Calderon v. Bonta · No. 5:22-cv-03487
- Beth Freeman
- Nov. 29, 2022
Background
Juan Carlos Calderon, a California prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging custody based on a state-court judgment. According to the petition, a jury in Santa Clara County Superior Court found him guilty of felony child endangerment and second-degree murder, and he was sentenced to 21 years to life in state prison on April 27, 1993. Calderon said he had exhausted available state remedies before filing the federal petition on June 14, 2022.
The petition asserted four groups of claims:
- Alleged violations connected to his trial, including inadequate legal assistance, inability to present a defense, due process, equal protection, the right to rebut evidence, compulsory process, and a fair and speedy trial.
- Alleged constitutional violations on direct appeal.
- Alleged violations during imprisonment, including experimentation, inadequate health care, and interference with access to the courts.
- An allegation that the respondent and prison officials had subjected him to a hate crime for more than 20 years.
Possible filing deadline
The court explained that the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act generally requires a state prisoner to file a federal petition within one year from the latest of several specified dates. The court noted that Calderon was sentenced in 1993 but filed this petition nearly three decades later, even assuming he received credit for time spent pursuing direct appeals and other state proceedings.
The court therefore identified a clear issue about whether the petition was timely. It directed the respondent to file either a motion to dismiss the petition as untimely or a notice stating that such a motion was unwarranted. The court did not decide the timeliness issue in this order and did not reach the merits of the claims in grounds (1) and (2).
Dismissal of non-habeas claims
The court dismissed grounds (3) and (4) without prejudice. “Without prejudice” means the dismissal does not itself bar Calderon from bringing those claims again in an appropriate case. The court concluded that the allegations about prison conditions and rights during imprisonment did not challenge the fact or duration of custody and therefore did not belong in a petition seeking release or a shorter sentence.
The court explained that claims challenging conditions of confinement may be brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute used for claims against state officials acting under state authority. The court declined to convert the current petition into a § 1983 case because the action would continue as to the claims in grounds (1) and (2). The order stated that Calderon would need to file a separate § 1983 action and pay the filing fees if he wished to pursue grounds (3) and (4).
Other rulings and next steps
The court granted Calderon’s motion for permission to proceed without paying filing fees. It terminated the other related motions as moot, meaning the court considered them no longer requiring a ruling because of the order’s other actions.
The respondent was ordered to file the timeliness motion or notice within 35 days after the order was filed. If a motion was filed, Calderon could oppose it within 28 days after receiving it, and the respondent could file a reply within 14 days after receiving the opposition. The court stated that no hearing would be held on the motion. If the respondent said a motion to dismiss was unwarranted, or if the court denied the motion, the court would then decide whether to require an answer to the petition. Judge Beth Labson Freeman also reminded Calderon that he was responsible for prosecuting the case and complying with court deadlines.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.