Fox v. Clark
- James Donato
- 3:21-cv-04993
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Fox v. Clark, Judge Donato lifted the stay, reopened Fox’s habeas case, and ordered the respondent to respond without deciding the claims.
Lamar Fox’s federal habeas case was reopened, and Ken Clark was required to respond or file a procedural motion within the deadlines set by the court.
What happened
In Fox v. Clark, Lamar Fox, a state prisoner representing himself, challenged his convictions and sentences through a federal petition. He argued that his conviction rested on an invalid criminal-liability theory and that the trial court wrongly refused to give jury instructions about voluntary intoxication.
The court granted Fox’s motions to lift the stay, lifted the stay, and reopened the case. It said the claims were sufficient to require a response and ordered the respondent to file an answer within 84 days, while allowing a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds instead.
Judge James Donato did not decide whether Fox should receive relief. The order set deadlines for the next steps and warned Fox that failing to follow court requirements could lead to dismissal for failure to prosecute.
The detailed version
- Fox v. Clark · No. 3:21-cv-04993
- James Donato
- July 17, 2023
Background
Lamar Fox, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the federal law that allows a state prisoner to seek relief from unlawful custody. The case had been stayed while the California Supreme Court considered In re Lopez. Fox told the court that the ruling in that matter benefited him and that his claims had been exhausted, meaning he had pursued them through the available state-court process.
According to the order, a jury found Fox and a codefendant guilty of murder, attempted murder, and related offenses. Fox received a sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole, plus 224 years to life. The California Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment but sent the case back for resentencing on several counts. The California Supreme Court later denied review.
Claims
Fox asserted two grounds for federal habeas relief: first, that his conviction should be reversed because the jury found him guilty under the natural-and-probable-consequences doctrine, which he said was an invalid theory of criminal liability; and second, that the trial court erred by refusing to give jury instructions concerning voluntary intoxication. The court liberally construed these claims and found them sufficient to require a response.
Ruling and next steps
The court granted Fox’s motions to lift the stay, lifted the stay in the case, and reopened the action. It ordered the respondent to file and serve an answer within 84 days of the order’s issuance. The answer must comply with the rules governing Section 2254 cases and explain why a writ of habeas corpus should not be granted. The respondent must also provide relevant portions of the previously transcribed state trial record.
The order permitted the respondent to file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds instead of an answer. If that motion is filed, Fox may file an opposition or a statement that he does not oppose it within 28 days after receiving the motion, and the respondent may file a reply within 14 days after receiving any opposition. The order also reminded Fox to serve court communications on the respondent’s counsel, keep the court informed of address changes, and comply with court orders. It warned that failure to do so could result in dismissal for failure to prosecute.
Judge James Donato’s order addressed the stay and the case’s next procedural steps; it did not decide the merits of Fox’s habeas claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.