Urena v. Warden
- Thomas Hixson
- 3:23-cv-03917
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Urena v. Warden, Judge Hixson found Urena’s habeas claims cognizable and ordered the warden to answer or move to dismiss.
Martin Anthony Urena and Warden Jeff Lynch; the order requires the respondent to respond to Urena’s federal habeas petition.
What happened
In Urena v. Warden, Martin Anthony Urena, an inmate at California State Prison—Sacramento, challenged his state-court conviction through a federal habeas petition. He said he had unsuccessfully appealed to the state appellate court and California Supreme Court, and had not filed a state habeas petition.
Urena raised claims about jury instructions concerning California Criminal Jury Instruction 3471, including whether the instruction was supported by evidence and whether the jury should have received a definition of “starts a fight.” He also claimed that his trial lawyer was ineffective for failing to object to the instruction and request the definition.
The court found the claims sufficient to proceed at this stage and ordered Warden Jeff Lynch to file an answer within 91 days or file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds. Judge Thomas S. Hixson did not decide whether Urena should receive habeas relief.
The detailed version
- Urena v. Warden · No. 3:23-cv-03917
- Thomas Hixson
- Sept. 12, 2023
Background
Martin Anthony Urena, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his state-court conviction. The petition states that a Santa Clara County jury convicted him of second-degree murder and being an ex-felon in possession of a weapon. It also states that he was sentenced on or about July 23, 2018, to 62 years and 8 months to life in state prison. Urena reported that he unsuccessfully appealed to the state appellate court and the California Supreme Court, and denied filing a state habeas petition. He paid the filing fee.
Claims and Screening
The court reviewed the petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2243 and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. The court identified three federal habeas claims as cognizable, meaning legally sufficient to proceed at the initial review stage:
- An instructional-error claim concerning California Criminal Jury Instruction
- 2. An instructional-error claim asserting that the jury was not told what it means under California law to “start a fight.”
- An ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claim asserting that counsel failed to object to Instruction 3471 as unsupported by substantial evidence and failed to request an instruction defining “starts a fight.”
The court stated that, liberally construing Urena’s filings, these claims appeared cognizable under § 2254 and warranted an answer from the respondent. The court did not decide the merits of any claim.
Order
The court ordered the Clerk to serve the order on Warden Jeff Lynch and the Attorney General of California, and to mail a copy to Urena. It ordered the respondent to file and serve an answer within 91 days showing why a writ of habeas corpus should not be granted, along with relevant portions of the transcribed state trial record. The respondent could instead file, within the same 91-day period, a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds. The order also set response deadlines if such a motion were filed.
The court warned that failure to comply with court orders could result in dismissal for failure to prosecute and stated that extensions could be granted for good cause if timely requested. Judge Thomas S. Hixson signed the order. The case remained pending, and the order did not grant or deny habeas relief.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.