Delmonico v. Bonta
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:21-cv-02009
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Delmonico v. Bonta, Judge Gilliam granted reconsideration, reopened the habeas case, dismissed one claim, and ordered briefing on exhaustion and mootness.
Michael John Delmonico’s federal habeas action was reopened, while Rob Bonta was ordered to brief exhaustion and mootness issues. Three petition claims remained for an answer, and a fourth claim was dismissed.
What happened
In Delmonico v. Bonta, Michael John Delmonico challenged his 2018 state misdemeanor conviction through a federal petition. The court had previously stayed the case while he pursued state remedies, but a state court later denied his petition because he was no longer in custody.
The court granted Delmonico’s request to reconsider the earlier decision, lifted the stay, and reopened the case. It screened his fourth amended petition, found that three claims could proceed to an answer, and dismissed a fourth claim because it merely restated the legal standard for federal habeas relief. The court did not decide the merits of the remaining claims.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. ordered the parties to brief whether Delmonico exhausted state remedies and whether expungement of his conviction made the case moot. Respondent’s brief was due March 14, 2024, and Delmonico’s response was due April 25, 2024.
The detailed version
- Delmonico v. Bonta · No. 4:21-cv-02009
- Haywood Gilliam
- Feb. 16, 2024
Background
Michael John Delmonico filed this pro se federal habeas action under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his 2018 Santa Clara County Superior Court misdemeanor conviction for disorderly conduct. He received a 12-day county-jail sentence, three years of probation with sex-offender terms, and mandatory sex-offender registration. His probation was later terminated, and his conviction was expunged.
The court had previously dismissed a petition for failure to exhaust some ineffective-assistance claims and later granted a stay while Delmonico pursued state remedies. After a state superior court denied his state petition because he was no longer in custody, Delmonico asked the federal court to lift the stay. The court initially denied that request, finding that he had not presented his claims to the California Supreme Court. Delmonico then sought reconsideration, arguing that the state court’s custody ruling effectively prevented further state-court relief.
Reconsideration and Reopening
The court found it unclear whether Delmonico currently had any state remedies available. It therefore granted his request for reconsideration, ordered the stay lifted, and reopened the action.
Screening of the Fourth Amended Petition
The fourth amended petition alleged four groups of claims:
- Ineffective assistance of trial counsel, including allegations concerning the calling and examination of a defense witness, cross-examination, trial strategy, presentation of evidence, a law-enforcement witness, advice about testifying, and communications concerning sentencing.
- A Fifth Amendment claim alleging that law-enforcement officers interrogated Delmonico in custody without giving Miranda warnings.
- A claim alleging cumulative error from the other claims.
- A claim alleging that the state superior court’s denial of his appeal was an unreasonable determination of the facts.
The court held that the first three claims, liberally construed, appeared cognizable under § 2254 and required an answer from Respondent. The court dismissed the fourth claim because it merely restated the standard for granting federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). The opinion does not state that this dismissal was with or without prejudice.
Threshold Issues and Disposition
Before requiring Respondent to address the remaining claims on their merits, the court ordered briefing on two threshold issues: whether Delmonico exhausted his state-court remedies and whether expungement of his conviction made the action moot. Respondent was ordered to file a brief of no more than 10 pages by March 14, 2024; Delmonico’s responsive brief was due April 25, 2024.
The court granted the motion for reconsideration, lifted the stay, and reopened the action. It did not decide the remaining habeas claims on their merits in this order.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.