Barnes v. Carter
- William Orrick
- 3:22-cv-00882
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Barnes v. Covello, Judge Orrick dismissed Barnes’s amended federal petition with leave to amend because it did not follow court instructions.
Antoine Deshawn Barnes’s federal post-conviction case was dismissed with leave to amend. He was given until December 1, 2023, to file a compliant second amended petition, and the court warned that failing to do so likely would result in dismissal for failure to prosecute.
What happened
In Antoine Deshawn Barnes v. Patrick Covello, Barnes challenged aspects of his criminal case, including sentencing enhancements and possible resentencing under new laws. The court had previously explained which claims could proceed after his guilty plea and sentencing claims were dismissed.
Barnes filed an amended petition that the court found difficult to understand. It appeared to raise issues about discovery motions, the district attorney, and a conflict of interest, but the court said those issues could not be raised in this type of federal petition.
Judge William H. Orrick dismissed the amended petition with leave to amend. He ordered Barnes to file a proper second amended petition by December 1, 2023, and warned that failure to do so could result in dismissal of the case for failure to prosecute.
The detailed version
- Barnes v. Carter · No. 3:22-cv-00882
- William Orrick
- Oct. 17, 2023
Background
The court previously found two claims potentially cognizable: that illegal sentencing enhancements had been imposed and that new laws entitled Barnes to resentencing. The respondent moved to dismiss, arguing that the state statutes Barnes cited created state-law claims that could not be reviewed through a federal petition challenging custody. The court granted that motion and dismissed the petition with leave to amend.
The earlier dismissal order also explained that, because Barnes had entered a plea agreement and his sentencing claims had been dismissed, the claims he could raise concerned whether his lawyer’s representation was constitutionally inadequate and, if so, whether that affected his decision to plead guilty rather than go to trial. The court warned that such claims might be untimely and generally would need to be presented first to the state courts. It also explained that Barnes would need to request a stay of the federal case if he needed time to pursue state-court review, and that a stay would require good cause for the failure to exhaust and potentially meritorious claims.
Current Petition
Barnes filed an amended petition, but the court found it difficult to read and understand. The court said the petition appeared to raise claims concerning discovery motions, the district attorney, and a conflict of interest. The court determined that none of those apparent claims could proceed in this federal petition.
Ruling
The court dismissed the amended petition with leave to amend. Barnes was ordered to file a second amended petition by December 1, 2023. The court limited the amended petition to the claims identified in its earlier instructions and required Barnes to file a motion to stay the federal proceedings if those claims had not been exhausted in state court. The court said the timeliness issue could be addressed after exhaustion.
The court also required the filing to use the case caption and civil case number stated in the order, to include the words “SECOND AMENDED PETITION” on its first page, and to use the court’s form. The new petition would replace all earlier petitions. Judge William H. Orrick warned that failure to file a proper amended petition by the deadline likely would result in dismissal of the federal case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.