White v. Matteson

Background

A San Francisco County Superior Court jury found Barry 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 state appellate court affirmed the judgment on February 7, 2020, and the California Supreme Court denied review on May 13, 2020.

The federal one-year deadline under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act began on October 11, 2020, and ended on October 12, 2021. White filed his initial federal habeas petition on October 31, 2020, which the court treated as timely under the prisoner-mailbox rule. That petition raised general ineffective-assistance-of-counsel allegations, but the court found them insufficient to state legally recognizable claims and gave White opportunities to amend.

White’s operative second amended petition was filed on June 27, 2022, after the federal deadline. It asserted claims involving ineffective assistance of counsel, the racial composition of the jury, speedy trial rights, and equal protection based on his status as a youthful offender.

Timeliness

The court held that the operative petition could survive only if its claims related back to the timely initial petition. Under the governing rule, an amended habeas claim relates back only when it arises from the same core facts as a timely claim in the original petition.

The court concluded that the initial petition contained no cognizable claims because its ineffective-assistance allegations were too general. As a result, there was no timely claim to which the later claims could relate back. The court also noted that, even if the initial claims had been legally sufficient, the jury-composition, speedy-trial, and youthful-offender claims were not tied to the same core facts as the initial ineffective-assistance claims.

The court further found that White was not entitled to statutory tolling because he had filed no state petitions for collateral relief. It rejected equitable tolling, which can extend the deadline when a person diligently pursues rights but an extraordinary circumstance prevents timely filing. White gave no dates or details showing how COVID-19 had prevented filing, and the court concluded that his allegations about crowded, noisy, and unclean confinement conditions did not establish extraordinary circumstances.

Exhaustion

The court also held that the operative claims were unexhausted. Before seeking federal habeas relief from state custody, a person generally must give the state courts, including the highest available state court, a fair opportunity to consider each claim.

None of the claims in the operative petition had been presented to the California Supreme Court. The claims White listed in his state petition for review concerned jury instructions, proof of attempted murder, possible juror bias, and procedural requirements related to discovery of police records; they did not present the claims raised in the operative federal petition. Because the claims were already untimely, the court concluded that allowing White to return to state court to exhaust them would be futile.

Disposition

The court granted the respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition as untimely and unexhausted and dismissed the petition. It declined to issue a certificate of appealability, directed the Clerk to enter judgment for the respondent, and closed the case.