Chatman v. Ayers

Filing 26

ORDER by Judge William Alsup granting 24 Motion resolving disputes regarding exhaustion (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (dt, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/20/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

11
12

Erik Sanford CHATMAN,

Case Number 3-7-cv-640-WHA
Petitioner,

13
14

v.

15

Kevin CHAPPELL,
Warden of San Quentin State Prison,

16

Respondent.

DEATH-PENALTY CASE
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
RESOLVE DISPUTE OVER
EXHAUSTION
[Doc. No. 24]

17
18

In this capital habeas action, the parties filed a joint statement regarding exhaustion, and

19

Respondent moves for an order resolving disputes regarding exhaustion. (Doc. No. 24.) The

20

Motion is granted; the present order resolves the parties’ disputes.

21

In Claim 1 in his finalized Petition, Petitioner alleges that his trial counsel rendered

22

ineffective assistance. (Doc. No. 21 at 46–146.) The parties agree, and the Court finds and

23

concludes, that Subclaims 1A–1C and 1E–1Y are exhausted. The parties also agree, and the

24

Court finds and concludes, that Subclaim 1D is unexhausted. The parties dispute whether the

25

last subclaim, Subclaim 1Z, is exhausted.

26

In Subclaim 1D, Petitioner alleges that trial counsel failed to present evidence regarding

27

the effect of Petitioner’s drug abuse. (Id. at 105–06.) Petitioner alleges in Subclaim 1Z that

28

“[a]ll of the foregoing allegations of ineffective assistance must be considered cumulatively.”
Case No. 3-7-cv-640-WHA
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO RESOLVE DISPUTE OVER EXHAUSTION
(DPSAGOK)

1

(Id. at 145.) To the extent that Subclaim 1Z incorporates Subclaim 1D, Subclaim 1Z is

2

unexhausted. However, Subclaim 1Z is otherwise exhausted, as it is a component of the

3

cumulative-error claims presented to the Supreme Court of California, (Doc. No. 13 at

4

AG011016, AG012079–82).

5

The parties agree, and the Court finds and concludes, that Claims 2–10, 13–21, and

6

25–281 are exhausted. The parties agree, and the Court finds and concludes, that Claims 11, 12,

7

and 22–24 are unexhausted.

8
9

The parties dispute whether Claim 30 is exhausted. In that claim, Petitioner alleges that
his initial state habeas petition was dismissed without an evidentiary hearing even though he

10

raised material issues of fact. (Doc. No. 21 at 288.) In the state petition, Petitioner requested an

11

evidentiary hearing and alleged that the state court failed to hold an evidentiary hearing. (Doc.

12

No. 13 at AG12081, AG12122.) However, he did not allege that the petition already had been

13

dismissed or that dismissal without holding an evidentiary hearing constitutes an independent

14

basis for habeas relief. Accordingly, Claim 30 is unexhausted.

15

Claim 29 is a cumulative-error claim. (Doc. No. 21 at 286–88.) The parties agree that

16

this claim is exhausted. However, to the extent that it incorporates Subclaim 1D, Subclaim 1Z

17

(to the extent that it incorporates Subclaim 1D), and Claims 11, 12, 22–24, and 30, Claim 29 is

18

unexhausted; only the remainder of Claim 29 is exhausted.

19
20

Within thirty days from the date this order is filed, the parties shall file a joint casemanagement statement that contains a proposed schedule for further proceedings in this action.

21

It is so ordered.

22
23

DATED: June 20, 2013

__________________________________
WILLIAM H. ALSUP
United States District Judge

24
25
26
27
28

1

There are two claims numbered 28 in the Petition, presumably due to a typographical error. The
first Claim 28 appears between Claims 25 and 26; in it, Petitioner alleges that his conviction and sentence
violate international law. (Doc. No. 21 at 276–77.) The second Claim 28 appears between Claims 27 and
29; in it, Petitioner alleges that the method of execution in California is unlawful. (Id. at 282–86.) Both
claims are exhausted.

2
Case No. 3-7-cv-640-WHA
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO RESOLVE DISPUTE OVER EXHAUSTION
(DPSAGOK)