Cosey v. The People
- Beth Freeman
- 5:23-cv-01193
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Cosey v. The People, Judge Freeman denied reconsideration after Cosey failed to amend his federal petition on time.
Curt Laron Cosey, Jr., whose motion for reconsideration was denied and whose federal action remained dismissed; The People was the respondent.
What happened
In Cosey v. The People, Curt Laron Cosey, Jr., a state prisoner representing himself, challenged his state conviction in a federal petition. The court had dismissed his petition with permission to amend it.
Cosey later filed a letter and papers that the court treated as a request to reconsider the dismissal. He explained that he had filed papers in state court, but he had mistakenly used the federal court’s form and had not filed the required amended petition in federal court by the deadline.
Judge Freeman ruled that the court had not made an error and denied the request for reconsideration. The opinion also explained that any new challenge to Cosey’s plea had to be properly presented to and completed in state court before it could be brought in federal court.
The detailed version
- Cosey v. The People · No. 5:23-cv-01193
- Beth Freeman
- Nov. 16, 2023
Background
Curt Laron Cosey, Jr., a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition for federal habeas corpus relief—a procedure for challenging unlawful custody under federal law—under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He challenged his state conviction.
On August 22, 2023, the court dismissed the petition with leave to amend, meaning Cosey was allowed to file a corrected petition. The court gave him 28 days to do so and warned that failing to respond would result in dismissal of the action without further notice. When the September 19, 2023 deadline passed without a federal amended petition, the court dismissed the action on October 5, 2023.
Motion for reconsideration
Cosey then filed a letter and papers that the court construed as a motion for reconsideration. He said that he had filed something on September 19 and submitted a copy of his account showing a charge for legal-mail fees, along with the first page of an amended petition filed in state superior court. The court found that he had misunderstood its earlier order because he had used the federal court’s form to file the amended petition in state court rather than filing the amended petition in federal court.
The court explained that Cosey’s no-contest plea limited the types of federal claims he could bring. It had previously found that his claims asserting actual innocence were not cognizable, meaning they were not claims that could proceed in this federal petition after his plea. The court had identified possible claims concerning whether his plea was voluntary and understood, and whether his lawyer properly advised him about pleading. It also explained that Cosey first had to exhaust those claims by presenting them to the state courts.
The opinion states that Cosey appeared to be attempting to raise a new claim based on “IAC,” or ineffective assistance of counsel. The court advised that he had to use the appropriate state form and properly file a state petition in the appropriate state superior court. Only after completing that state-court process could he pursue the new claims in federal court.
Ruling
Judge Beth Labson Freeman concluded that there was no error in dismissing the action because Cosey had not filed an amended federal petition within the time provided. The court denied the motion for reconsideration. The opinion does not state whether the October 5 dismissal itself was with or without prejudice.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.