Townsend
- Jon Tigar
- 4:23-cv-06102
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Townsend v. Smith, Judge Tigar dismissed Townsend’s federal habeas petition for lack of jurisdiction and denied his stay request and appeal certificate.
Lloyd Gary Townsend’s federal habeas petition was dismissed, his request for a stay was denied, and his certificate of appealability was denied. Oak Smith received judgment in his favor, and the case was closed.
What happened
Lloyd Gary Townsend, proceeding without a lawyer, asked the federal court to review state proceedings involving his request for resentencing under California law. He claimed the state court improperly denied him a lawyer and held a hearing without notifying him or allowing him to attend.
In Townsend v. Oak Smith, the court concluded that these claims challenged only state law and did not allege violations of the federal Constitution or federal law. The court therefore dismissed the petition because it lacked federal authority to consider it.
Judge Jon S. Tigar also denied Townsend’s request to pause the case while a state appeal was considered and denied a certificate of appealability. The court directed the clerk to enter judgment for Smith and close the case.
The detailed version
- Townsend · No. 4:23-cv-06102
- Jon Tigar
- Feb. 21, 2024
Background
Lloyd Gary Townsend filed this case without a lawyer under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, which allows a state prisoner to seek federal review of custody that violates the federal Constitution, federal laws, or treaties. The opinion states that Townsend was sentenced in 2012 to 50 years to life. His petition challenged state-court proceedings concerning a resentencing request under California Penal Code § 1170.95.
Townsend alleged that the state court violated California law by denying him a lawyer for the resentencing hearing. He also alleged that the court held the hearing without notifying him and without his presence.
Court’s analysis
The court had previously screened the petition and found that the claims did not qualify for federal habeas review because they alleged violations of state law, not federal law. The court explained that the federal constitutional right to a lawyer extends to trial and the first appeal as of right, but the court found no federal right to a lawyer during this state resentencing process. The court also stated that the federal right to be personally present at critical stages applies to trial and sentencing, and that it was unaware of Supreme Court authority extending that right to a hearing on a § 1170.95 resentencing request.
The court ordered Townsend to explain why the petition should not be dismissed for lack of federal habeas jurisdiction. Townsend responded that he had filed the petition in the wrong court, had sent a new petition to the correct state appeals court, and wanted this case paused while that court considered his appeal. The court found that Townsend had not disputed that his claims challenged only state law. It further explained that exhausting state remedies would not give the federal court jurisdiction over claims that do not allege violations of federal law.
Rulings
Judge Jon S. Tigar DISMISSED the petition for lack of federal habeas jurisdiction. The court DENIED Townsend’s request for a stay because it lacked jurisdiction to consider the petition, regardless of whether he exhausted state remedies. The court also DENIED a certificate of appealability, which is a document required for an appeal in this type of federal habeas case when the petitioner has not made the required showing of a constitutional violation.
The clerk was directed to enter judgment in favor of Oak Smith and against Townsend and close the case. The order terminated the identified portions of Townsend’s filings.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.