Fowler v. People of California

Background

Douglas Edward Fowler was committed to Napa State Hospital and represented himself. He filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, seeking immediate release from confinement. The opinion states that he had been found guilty in two separate Lake County Superior Court cases involving auto theft and making terrorist threats, and that he had entered a plea of guilty by reason of insanity. He said he was sentenced to three years in state prison on December 10, 2020, with the sentences running concurrently, and was committed to the state hospital on April 22, 2021.

Fowler stated that the trial court later changed the terms from concurrent to consecutive and illegally extended his commitment. He characterized this as false imprisonment and sought release on his own recognizance. His appeal to the California Court of Appeal was still pending when he filed the federal petition. He had not presented his claims to the California Supreme Court and listed no other relevant state or federal post-conviction proceedings, apart from a January 17, 2023 proceeding in the superior court that he said changed his commitment illegally outside his presence.

Exhaustion Requirement

Before a federal court may grant relief under § 2254 to a person held under a state-court judgment, the person generally must first give the highest available state court a fair opportunity to decide each federal claim. The court concluded that the petition itself showed Fowler had not done so. Because he had not presented his claims to the California Supreme Court when he filed the petition, the federal court could not review or decide them at that time. The court explained that exhausting state remedies after filing would not cure the petition, although Fowler could file a later petition after exhaustion.

Rulings

The court dismissed the petition without prejudice for failure to exhaust state judicial remedies, allowing refiling after the available state remedies are exhausted. The court denied Fowler’s motion to “validate” a legal document and a provision of California Proposition 57 and to release him from custody. It also denied his motion asking the court to order his state-court attorney to send him his legal papers. The court stated that Fowler could request those papers from his attorney directly or seek assistance from a court in which he had a pending case. The court granted Fowler’s application to proceed without paying filing fees because of his lack of funds, directed the clerk to enter judgment, and closed the file.