Spikes v. Matteson
- Haywood Gilliam
- 5:22-cv-07293
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Spikes v. Matteson, Judge Gilliam reopened the action, vacated dismissal, granted fee-free filing, and ordered a response to habeas claims.
Demond A. Spikes may continue litigating his challenge to his state conviction without paying the filing fee. Giselle Matteson must respond to the petition or file a procedural motion within the time allowed by the order.
What happened
Demond A. Spikes, who is incarcerated, filed Spikes v. Matteson to challenge his 2016 California conviction. The court had previously dismissed the action because he had not paid the filing fee or submitted an application to proceed without paying it.
Spikes later asked the court to reopen the case and submitted a complete fee-waiver application. His petition raises eight groups of claims, including insufficient evidence, evidentiary and prosecutorial errors, ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel, cumulative error, and ineffective assistance by habeas counsel.
The court granted the request to reopen, vacated the earlier dismissal and judgment, and granted permission to proceed without paying the filing fee. Judge Gilliam found that the petition stated claims that could qualify for federal relief and ordered Matteson to respond; the court did not decide whether Spikes should ultimately receive relief.
The detailed version
- Spikes v. Matteson · No. 5:22-cv-07293
- Haywood Gilliam
- June 30, 2023
Background
Demond A. Spikes, an incarcerated person proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition for federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, seeking to challenge his 2016 conviction in San Mateo County Superior Court. A jury found him guilty of first-degree murder, shooting at an inhabited dwelling, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. The jury also found true two firearm-use allegations involving great bodily injury or death. He was sentenced to 124 years to life in state prison.
The court dismissed the action without prejudice on February 13, 2023, because Spikes had not paid the filing fee or filed an application to proceed without paying it. Spikes then filed a request for reconsideration and a complete application to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court concluded that he had corrected the filing deficiency.
Claims and screening
The amended petition asserted eight groups of claims: insufficient evidence of deliberate premeditation for the murder conviction; improper exclusion of third-party-culpability evidence; improper admission of other-crimes evidence; prosecutorial misconduct involving evidence of prior violence against prostitutes and the prosecution’s closing argument; ineffective assistance of trial counsel; ineffective assistance of appellate and collateral-review counsel; cumulative error; and ineffective assistance by habeas counsel concerning an alibi witness.
At the screening stage, the court determined that the amended petition stated claims legally sufficient to warrant a response. This was not a decision on whether any claim would ultimately succeed. The court ordered the respondent to show cause why federal relief should not be granted, while permitting the respondent to file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds instead of an answer.
Ruling
The court granted Spikes’s request to reopen the action. It ordered the Clerk to vacate the earlier order of dismissal and related judgment and to reopen the case. The court also granted Spikes permission to proceed without paying the filing fee.
The court ordered the respondent to file an answer within ninety-one days, together with relevant portions of the previously transcribed state trial record, or to file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds within that period. If an answer is filed, Spikes may respond within thirty-five days; the order also sets response deadlines if the respondent files a motion to dismiss. The order warns that failure to comply with court orders could result in dismissal for failure to prosecute.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. signed the order. The order reopened the case and required further litigation; it did not grant or deny the requested federal habeas relief.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.