Brooks
- Jon Tigar
- 4:22-cv-06334
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 6
In Marcel Brooks v. Neil McDowell, Judge Tigar dismissed four habeas claims with prejudice and ordered a response on the remaining ineffective-assistance claim.
Marcel Brooks’s federal habeas petition was narrowed: Claims 1, 2, 3, and 5 were dismissed with prejudice, while Claim 4 remains pending. Neil McDowell must respond to Claim 4 or file a procedural motion within the time ordered.
What happened
Marcel Brooks, an incarcerated person representing himself, asked the federal court to review his Alameda County conviction and sentence. His petition raised five claims, including ineffective assistance of counsel, due process, equal protection, Eighth Amendment, and California-law claims.
The court dismissed Claims 1, 2, 3, and 5 with prejudice because they did not present claims that federal habeas law could consider. The court found Claim 4—alleging that trial counsel failed to investigate two witnesses who could have shown Brooks’s innocence—could proceed.
Judge Jon S. Tigar ordered Neil McDowell to respond within 91 days and show why relief should not be granted on Claim 4. The order did not decide whether Brooks will ultimately win that claim.
The detailed version
- Brooks · No. 4:22-cv-06334
- Jon Tigar
- Feb. 9, 2024
Background
Marcel Brooks, an inmate at Ironwood State Prison proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his Alameda County conviction and sentence. The court explained that federal habeas relief is available only when a person is held in violation of the United States Constitution, federal law, or a treaty.
The state appellate court affirmed Brooks’s judgment and conviction on October 30, 2023. The opinion states that Brooks apparently did not seek review in the California Supreme Court, so his conviction and judgment became final on December 9, 2023.
Claims and Analysis
Brooks asserted five claims:
- Trial and appellate counsel were ineffective for failing to seek relief under California Senate Bill No.
- 2. The state appellate court allegedly violated due process and the Supremacy Clause by failing to vacate Brooks’s conviction as required by state law.
- The California Supreme Court allegedly vacated Brooks’s conviction, but state officials and public defenders allegedly failed to release him, violating equal protection and the Eighth Amendment.
- Trial counsel allegedly failed to investigate two key witnesses who would have shown Brooks’s innocence.
- The admission of expert testimony about rap lyrics allegedly violated California’s Racial Justice Act.
The court found Claim 4 cognizable, meaning it adequately alleged a possible federal claim. Liberally read, that claim alleged ineffective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment because counsel failed to investigate witnesses. The court ordered a response to that claim but did not decide its merits.
The court dismissed Claims 1, 2, 3, and 5 with prejudice for failure to state cognizable federal habeas claims. Claim 1 failed because Senate Bill No. 775 became effective after trial and appellate counsel had finished representing Brooks; any claim concerning counsel during resentencing was also not cognizable because there is no federal constitutional right to counsel during state post-conviction resentencing proceedings. Claim 2 concerned an alleged error under California law, and state-law errors generally cannot support federal habeas relief. Claim 3 misstated what the California Supreme Court had done: that court directed the state appellate court to vacate its decision and reconsider the case in light of California Assembly Bill No. 518, not to vacate Brooks’s conviction. Claim 5 likewise alleged only a violation of California law.
Order
Judge Jon S. Tigar ordered the court to dismiss Claims 1, 2, 3, and 5 with prejudice. The respondent must file an answer within 91 days showing cause why a writ should not be granted on Claim 4. The respondent may instead file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds. Brooks may file a reply to an answer or respond to such a motion according to the deadlines in the order.
The order therefore dismissed four claims but left Claim 4 pending for further proceedings. It did not determine whether Brooks is entitled to habeas relief on Claim 4.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.