Bowen v. Samuels

Background

Joevon L Bowen, who was representing himself, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 seeking federal habeas relief—a court order addressing allegedly unlawful custody under a state-court judgment. He challenged the San Francisco Superior Court’s 2020 denial of his request for resentencing under California Penal Code § 1170.95.

The opinion states that a San Francisco County jury found Bowen guilty of first-degree murder in 2011 and that he received a sentence of 25 years to life in state prison. Bowen later sought resentencing. After an evidentiary hearing, the state court found that he was ineligible because he had been a major participant in the felony underlying the felony-murder conviction and had acted with reckless indifference to human life. Bowen’s federal petition alleged that insufficient evidence supported that conclusion.

Reopening the Case

The court had dismissed the action without prejudice on March 27, 2023, because Bowen had not paid the filing fee or submitted an application to proceed without paying it. Bowen then filed a pleading titled “Application to Reinstate Habeas Corpus and Continue the Docket Order,” which the court treated as a request to reopen. Because Bowen fulfilled the filing requirement, the court granted the request to reopen, directed the Clerk to vacate the dismissal and related judgment, and reopened the case.

The court denied as moot Bowen’s request to proceed without paying the filing fee because he had paid the filing fee.

Screening and Ruling

At the initial screening stage, the court determined that the petition could state a valid federal claim. The court explained that although resentencing under California law is a state remedy, denying resentencing could potentially raise a due-process claim if the statutory requirements for relief were met but the evidence no longer supported a murder or attempted-murder conviction under the changes to California law. The court therefore found that the petition stated a claim that could support federal habeas relief and required a response.

The court ordered Danny Samuels to file, within 91 days, an answer explaining why a writ of habeas corpus should not be granted and to provide relevant portions of the state trial record. Samuels may instead file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds within that period. The court also set deadlines for Bowen’s response and reminded him to serve his filings on Samuels’s counsel and comply with court orders.

The court did not decide whether Bowen is entitled to habeas relief. It granted the request to reopen, vacated the dismissal and judgment, denied the filing-fee request as moot, and ordered a response.