Jackson v. Bonta

Background

Derrick Jackson, an incarcerated person proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his 2012 state-court conviction. The court’s earlier screening order identified three asserted grounds for relief: an illegal search and seizure; the warrantless seizure of cellphone contents; and the prosecutor’s alleged knowing use of perjured testimony from Officer Van Diver.

The court had dismissed the first two grounds because federal habeas review generally does not reconsider Fourth Amendment claims when the state provided a full and fair opportunity to litigate them. The court found that California Penal Code § 1538.5 provided such an opportunity. It found the perjury-related prosecutorial-misconduct claim cognizable, meaning legally eligible for federal habeas review, but noted that the petition appeared potentially unexhausted and untimely.

Exhaustion and Timeliness

Jackson responded that he had exhausted state remedies through a state habeas petition that the California Supreme Court denied on August 10, 2022. He also argued that the petition should not be dismissed as untimely because his trial involved constitutional errors and he is actually innocent. Because the state petition was not in the federal record, the court could not determine whether Jackson had exhausted the remaining claim. The court also explained that a federal court may reach an otherwise late habeas claim when refusing to do so would cause a miscarriage of justice based on a showing of probable actual innocence.

The court therefore required the respondent to file, within 91 days, an answer showing why the writ should not be granted on the cognizable claim. The respondent may instead file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds within that period. Jackson may respond to an answer or motion under the deadlines stated in the order.

Requests for Reconsideration and Counsel

The court denied Jackson’s request to reconsider dismissal of his two Fourth Amendment claims. It found his arguments vague and conclusory and said he had not provided facts showing that California’s procedure was effectively unavailable or that he was prevented from litigating those claims. The court explained that the relevant question under the applicable rule is whether Jackson had an opportunity to litigate the claims, not whether he actually used that opportunity or whether the state court decided them correctly.

The court also denied Jackson’s request for appointed counsel. It explained that the constitutional right to counsel does not apply to habeas proceedings, although a court may appoint counsel when the interests of justice require it. The denial was without prejudice to the court appointing counsel later on its own initiative if circumstances make that necessary.

Disposition

The court denied Jackson’s request for reconsideration and denied his request for appointment of counsel. It did not finally decide the remaining prosecutorial-misconduct claim; instead, it ordered the respondent to answer or file a procedural motion to dismiss. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. issued the order.