Campbell v. People of the State of California
- Beth Freeman
- 5:23-cv-04580
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Campbell v. People, Judge Freeman found Campbell’s habeas claims cognizable and ordered California’s acting warden to respond.
Desmond O. Campbell and Acting Warden E. Borla, who was substituted as the respondent; the order also directs the California Attorney General’s attorney to participate for the respondent.
What happened
Desmond O. Campbell v. People of the State of California concerns Campbell’s federal challenge to his state conviction. Campbell, a state prisoner representing himself, asked the federal court to review his conviction.
A California jury convicted Campbell of first-degree burglary, and he received a sentence of 35 years to life. He raised claims that his lawyer gave ineffective advice about refusing a plea deal and that the prosecutor made improper remarks to the jury.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman ordered the case to proceed by requiring a response from the state. She also replaced the named respondent, the People of the State of California, with Acting Warden E. Borla, and set deadlines for the response and any reply.
The detailed version
- Campbell v. People of the State of California · No. 5:23-cv-04580
- Beth Freeman
- Dec. 4, 2023
Background
Desmond O. Campbell, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his state conviction. The petition states that a jury in Contra Costa County Superior Court found him guilty of first-degree burglary and that he was sentenced to 35 years to life as a three-striker. The California Court of Appeal granted relief in part and denied relief in part on direct appeal, and the California Supreme Court denied review.
Claims
Campbell raised two grounds for federal relief: ineffective assistance of counsel based on advice to reject a plea deal, and prosecutorial misconduct based on several improper remarks to the jury. The court determined that, when read liberally, these claims were legally suitable for consideration in a federal petition and warranted a response from the respondent. The court did not decide whether Campbell’s claims ultimately succeed.
Proper Respondent
Campbell named the People of the State of California as the respondent. The court explained that a petition challenging state custody under § 2254 must name the state officer responsible for the prisoner’s custody, typically the facility’s warden. Because Campbell was incarcerated at the California Training Facility, where E. Borla was the acting warden, the Clerk was ordered to replace the People of the State of California with Acting Warden E. Borla as respondent.
Order
The court ordered electronic service of the order on the respondent and the California Attorney General’s attorney. It required the respondent, within 60 days, to file an answer explaining why the requested relief should not be granted and to provide relevant portions of the previously transcribed state trial record. Campbell may file a reply within 30 days after receiving the answer. The respondent may instead file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds, with deadlines for Campbell’s opposition and the respondent’s reply.
The order also reminded Campbell that he must prosecute the case, serve court communications on the respondent’s counsel, report address changes, and comply with court orders. The court stated that failing to do so may result in dismissal for failure to prosecute. Judge Beth Labson Freeman issued the order to show cause; the order did not resolve the merits of Campbell’s conviction-related claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.