Delmonico v. Bonta
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:21-cv-02009
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Delmonico v. Bonta, Judge Gilliam denied without prejudice Delmonico’s request to lift the stay because he had not exhausted California remedies.
Michael John Delmonico’s request to lift the stay and reopen the federal case was denied without prejudice; Respondent Rob Bonta remains the named respondent.
What happened
Delmonico v. Bonta concerns Michael John Delmonico’s self-represented federal petition challenging a 2018 misdemeanor conviction from Palo Alto Superior Court. The court had stayed the case so he could pursue his claims in state court.
Delmonico asked the court to lift the stay, saying he had exhausted his state remedies. He had filed a petition in Santa Clara County Superior Court, but he did not report filing petitions in California’s appellate courts or Supreme Court. The court explained that exhaustion requires giving the highest available state court a fair chance to consider the claims.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. denied the request to lift the stay and reopen the case without prejudice. Delmonico may renew the request after exhausting his state remedies and should include his state-court filings and the state court’s decision.
The detailed version
- Delmonico v. Bonta · No. 4:21-cv-02009
- Haywood Gilliam
- Mar. 9, 2023
Background
Michael John Delmonico filed this self-represented petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, asking the federal court to review his 2018 misdemeanor conviction from Palo Alto Superior Court. At Delmonico’s request, the court stayed the federal case on March 21, 2022, so he could exhaust his state-court remedies. Exhaustion means presenting the claims to the appropriate state courts before asking a federal court to consider them.
Delmonico asked the court to lift the stay and reopen the case, arguing that he had exhausted his state remedies. He reported filing a state petition in Santa Clara County Superior Court on July 11, 2022. That court denied the petition because it found that he was not in actual or constructive custody: his jail term was considered served in September 2018, his probation had ended by court order on April 20, 2021, his conviction had been expunged under California Penal Code § 1203.4 on July 2, 2021, and sex-offender registration did not place him in custody for federal habeas purposes.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that a petitioner must give the highest available state court a fair opportunity to rule on the merits of the claims that the petitioner seeks to raise federally. Delmonico had filed a petition only in the Santa Clara County Superior Court and had not presented his claims through state collateral proceedings to the California Supreme Court.
The court also noted that Delmonico reported trying to file a petition for review with the California Supreme Court, but that court refused to accept it because it violated California Rule of Court 8.500(a). The federal court explained that a petition for review is part of the direct-review process, not a state collateral proceeding.
Disposition
The court denied Delmonico’s request to lift the stay and reopen the action without prejudice. The order allows him to file a renewed request after exhausting his state remedies. The court instructed him to attach the briefs he submitted to the state courts and the state court’s decision so the federal court can determine whether exhaustion has occurred. The order terminated the request docketed as Dkt. No. 29.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.