Geeter v. Pollard

Background

Jamar Geeter sought federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 from state convictions for commercial sex trafficking, forcible rape and oral copulation, and pimping and pandering of two minors. He received a sentence of fifteen years to life plus eighty-two years and was incarcerated when the order was issued.

Geeter initially filed a federal habeas petition on March 31, 2020, containing four claims. After a stay and later state-court proceedings, he filed a First Amended Petition on September 2, 2022, containing eight claims. The respondent moved to dismiss claims 4 through 7, arguing that claims 4 and 5 were not cognizable in federal habeas review, claims 4 through 6 were procedurally defaulted, and claims 4 through 7 were untimely.

Reasons for the ruling

The court held that claims 4 and 5 were not cognizable, meaning they could not be considered through a federal habeas petition. It concluded that a challenge to the denial of a California Penal Code § 995 motion presented a state-law issue that was not reviewable in federal habeas proceedings. It also held that Geeter’s Fourth Amendment challenge to the denial of a California Penal Code § 1538.5 suppression motion was barred under Stone v. Powell because the claim had been fully litigated in state court. Under that rule, federal habeas review is unavailable when the state provided an opportunity for full and fair litigation of a Fourth Amendment claim.

The court separately held that claims 4 through 6 were procedurally defaulted. The California Supreme Court had denied those claims under In re Dixon, which bars state habeas relief for errors that could have been raised on a timely appeal. The court explained that this state procedural rule is adequate to bar federal review. Geeter argued that ineffective assistance by appellate counsel supplied a basis to excuse the default, but the court found that he had not sufficiently alleged constitutionally deficient performance or prejudice. It also found his allegations of a fundamental miscarriage of justice conclusory.

The court further held that claims 4 through 7 were untimely under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act’s one-year filing deadline. The court determined that the deadline was December 11, 2020, while the amended petition was filed on September 2, 2022. It rejected Geeter’s argument that the claims were protected by the earlier stay because the stay applied to the original petition, which did not contain claims 4 through 7. The court also concluded that the amended claims did not relate back to the original petition because they did not arise from corresponding factual events and differed in both time and type. Finally, the court rejected Geeter’s actual-innocence argument because he presented no new evidence supporting that exception.

Disposition

Judge Richard Seeborg granted the respondent’s motion to dismiss claims 4 through 7. The court dismissed claims 4 and 5 as not cognizable, claims 4 through 6 as procedurally defaulted, and claims 4 through 7 as untimely, describing the latter grounds as additional grounds for dismissal. The respondent was ordered to file an answer addressing the merits of the remaining claims by July 3, 2024. Geeter was ordered to file a reply 45 days after that answer, and the petition would be considered submitted on the day the reply was due.

The opinion’s background list and later discussion appear to describe the subject matter of claims 4 and 5 in different orders. This summary therefore states the court’s numbered dispositions without assigning those subject matters to particular claim numbers.