Bratcher v. Matteson
- Van Keulen
- 5:23-cv-05566
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Bratcher v. Matteson, Judge Van Keulen ordered a response to Hassan Lee Bratcher’s petition challenging his state convictions.
Hassan Lee Bratcher and the respondent in the state-custody challenge, with the Attorney General of the State of California identified as the respondent’s attorney for service and response.
What happened
Bratcher v. Matteson concerns Hassan Lee Bratcher’s petition challenging his California convictions for kidnapping and rape. He was sentenced to 30 years to life and filed the petition under federal law governing challenges to state custody.
Bratcher raises two claims: that the trial court violated his right to due process by omitting part of a jury instruction, and that his lawyer provided ineffective assistance by failing to properly argue for that instruction. The order says these are valid types of federal constitutional claims that can be considered in this proceeding.
Judge Susan Van Keulen ordered the respondent to show why the petition should not be granted. The respondent must file an answer or a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds, and the order sets deadlines for both sides’ filings; it does not decide whether Bratcher is entitled to relief.
The detailed version
- Bratcher v. Matteson · No. 5:23-cv-05566
- Van Keulen
- Mar. 7, 2024
Background
Hassan Lee Bratcher, identified as a state prisoner at the California State Prison in Solano, California, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241 and 2254. A habeas petition is a court filing seeking relief from allegedly unlawful custody. Bratcher paid the filing fee and consented to a magistrate judge’s jurisdiction.
The order states that Bratcher was convicted in 2019 in the California Superior Court for the County of Alameda of kidnapping under California Penal Code § 207(a) and rape under California Penal Code § 261(a)(2). He received a sentence of 30 years to life. He pursued a direct appeal, the California Supreme Court denied review, and the time to seek review in the United States Supreme Court expired. The order also states that Section 2254 is the exclusive vehicle for his petition because he challenges custody under a state-court judgment.
Claims
Bratcher seeks reversal of his convictions on two grounds:
1. He claims that the trial court violated his Fourteenth Amendment due-process right by omitting part of a cautionary jury instruction concerning a criminal defendant’s out-of-court statements. 2. He claims that his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel was violated because his lawyer failed to properly argue for the cautionary instruction at trial.
The court explained that an erroneous jury instruction can violate due process when it infects the entire trial, and that a lawyer’s failure to act reasonably under prevailing professional norms can violate the right to effective assistance of counsel.
Ruling and next steps
The court concluded that the petition presents claims that may support federal constitutional and habeas relief. It ordered the respondent to show cause why the petition should not be granted. This is an order requiring a response; it is not a decision granting or denying the petition.
The Clerk must serve the order and a magistrate-judge-consent form on the respondent and the respondent’s attorney, identified as the Attorney General of the State of California. The respondent must file the consent form by March 18, 2024.
By April 22, 2024, the respondent must either file an answer complying with Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases and showing cause why relief should not be granted, or file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds. If an answer is filed, Bratcher may file a reply, called a traverse, by May 6, 2024. If a motion to dismiss is filed, Bratcher’s opposition or statement of non-opposition is due May 22, 2024, and the respondent’s reply is due June 5, 2024.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.