Phillips v. Jones
- Charles Breyer
- 3:23-cv-03875
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Phillips v. Jones, Judge Breyer granted Phillips permission to proceed without fees and ordered a response to his state-conviction challenges without deciding their merits.
Michael J. Phillips may litigate the federal petition without paying the filing fee. Gena Jones must respond to the petition or file a procedural motion, but the court has not yet decided whether Phillips is entitled to relief.
What happened
Phillips v. Jones concerns Michael J. Phillips’s federal challenge to a California state-court conviction and sentence. Phillips, who is representing himself and is incarcerated at the California Health Care Facility in Stockton, was convicted of murder with special circumstances and several other offenses and sentenced to life without parole plus a consecutive prison term.
Phillips raised eleven claims, including alleged speedy-trial violations, conflict-free-counsel and ineffective-assistance claims, and evidentiary errors. The court found that the claims appeared potentially suitable for federal review and ordered respondent Gena Jones to respond. The court did not decide whether Phillips should receive relief.
The court granted Phillips permission to proceed without paying the filing fee and required Jones to file an answer within 60 days, while allowing a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds instead. Judge Charles R. Breyer also set deadlines for any further filings by Phillips.
The detailed version
- Phillips v. Jones · No. 3:23-cv-03875
- Charles Breyer
- Oct. 31, 2023
Background
Michael J. Phillips, a state prisoner representing himself, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This type of petition asks a federal court to review whether a person is being held under a state-court judgment in violation of federal law. Phillips challenged a conviction and sentence from the San Francisco County Superior Court and also requested permission to proceed without paying the filing fee.
A jury convicted Phillips of special-circumstances murder, aggravated mayhem, robbery, burglary, and other offenses, including offenses involving fraudulent financial documents. On January 18, 2019, he was sentenced to life without parole for the murder conviction and a consecutive determinate sentence of six years and eight months for the burglary and fraudulent-financial-document convictions. The sentences for the other counts were stayed. The California Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment on February 28, 2022, and the California Supreme Court denied review on June 15, 2022. The opinion states that Phillips then unsuccessfully sought relief from the state courts, but the provided text does not include the rest of that procedural history.
Claims and screening
Phillips presented eleven claims, including alleged denial of a speedy trial, denial of conflict-free counsel, ineffective assistance by trial and appellate counsel, and evidentiary errors that allegedly denied him due process. The court concluded that, when read generously because Phillips was representing himself, the claims appeared potentially eligible for review under Section 2254 and warranted a response from the respondent. The court did not rule on the merits of any claim.
Order
The court granted Phillips’s request to proceed without paying the filing fee. It directed the clerk to serve the order on Jones and the California Attorney General’s Office. Jones was ordered to file and serve an answer complying with the rules governing Section 2254 cases within 60 days of the order’s issuance. The order also allowed Jones to file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds instead of an answer. If that occurred, the order set deadlines for Phillips’s opposition or statement of non-opposition and for Jones’s reply.
Phillips was told that any communication with the court must also be served on respondent’s counsel and that he must keep the court and the parties informed of any address change. The order was signed by United States District Judge Charles R. Breyer.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.