Delmonico v. People of California

Filing 3

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO AMEND Amended Petition due by 4/28/2021. Signed by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. on 3/31/2021. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/31/2021)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

MICHAEL JOHN DELMONICO,
Petitioner,

8

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE
TO AMEND

v.

9
10

MATTHEW RODRIQUEZ,
Respondent.

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 21-cv-02009-HSG

12
13
Petitioner has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

14
15

§ 2254 challenging a 2018 misdemeanor conviction from Palo Alto Superior Court.1 Dkt. No. 1.

16

Petitioner has paid the filing fee. Dkt. No. 2.
BACKGROUND

17

On August 24, 2018, Petitioner was convicted in Palo Alto Superior Court of a

18
19

misdemeanor of disorderly conduct (Cal. Penal Code § 647(a)). Dkt. No. 1 at 1. Petitioner was

20

sentenced to twelve days in county jail. Dkt. No. 1 at 1. Petitioner states that he is not yet

21

confined pending his appeal and that he is on formal probation. Dkt. No. 1 at 1.

22

//

23

//

24
25
26
27
28

1

The Clerk of the Court is directed to substitute Matthew Rodriquez, the California Attorney
General, in place of the previously named respondent because Attorney General Rodriquez is
Petitioner’s current custodian. See Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 891, 894 (9th Cir.), as
amended (May 8, 1996) (where petitioner is on probation or parole, he may name as respondent
his probation or parole officer, or the official in charge of the parole or probation agency, or the
state correctional agency, or the state attorney general).

Petitioner appealed his conviction to the appellate division of the superior court, and the

1
2

appeal was denied on December 7, 2020. Dkt. No. 1 at 2. The state appellate court denied the

3

petition for transfer on February 11, 2021. Dkt. No. 1 at 2-3. Petitioner filed the instant petition

4

on or about March 20, 2021. Dkt. No. 1 at 36.
DISCUSSION

5
6

A.

Standard of Review
This Court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person in

7
8

custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in

9

violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). A
district court considering an application for a writ of habeas corpus shall “award the writ or issue

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it

12

appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto.” 28

13

U.S.C. § 2243.

14

B.

15

Claims
In the body of his petition, Petitioner states that he has two claims for federal habeas relief.

16

The first claim alleges ineffective assistance of trial counsel and refers the Court to an attachment

17

for the supporting facts. The attachment is a 20-page commentary on the respondent’s appellate

18

brief, which Petitioner provided to his state appellate attorney. The commentary, in narrative

19

format, alleges various instances of ineffective assistance by trial counsel and various weaknesses

20

in the prosecution’s case. The second claim alleges that Petitioner was not provided with a

21

Miranda warning prior to his interrogation.

22

Liberally construed, Petitioner’s second claim states a cognizable claim for federal habeas

23

relief. However, this petition will be dismissed with leave to amend because Petitioner’s first

24

claim fails to clearly identify what trial counsel did or did not do that constituted ineffective

25

assistance of counsel. See James v. Borg, 24 F.3d 20, 26 (9th Cir. 1994) (“Conclusory allegations

26

which are not supported by a statement of specific facts do not warrant habeas relief.”). In filing

27

an amended petition, Petitioner should list each specific instance of ineffective assistance of

28

counsel that he believes warrant federal habeas relief. Petitioner should number these claims, and
2

1

not merely provide a summary in narrative format. Each claim should be supported by a statement

2

of specific facts.

3

Claims cannot be incorporated by reference. Petitioner’s appellate opening brief was not

4

filed with his petition. If the appellate opening brief set forth claims of ineffective assistance of

5

counsel which Petitioner seeks to raise here, Petitioner must list these claims in his amended

6

petition, and provide supporting facts for each claim. In the alternative, Petitioner may attach a

7

copy of his appellate opening brief to his amended petition, as long as he clearly identifies which

8

claims in the appellate opening brief he wishes to raise in his federal habeas petition.

9

The Court notes that Petitioner states that he did not present some of these claims in his
appellate opening brief. Petitioner is cautioned that prisoners in state custody who wish to

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

challenge collaterally in federal habeas proceedings either the fact or length of their confinement

12

are first required to exhaust state judicial remedies, either on direct appeal or through collateral

13

proceedings, by presenting the highest state court available with a fair opportunity to rule on the

14

merits of each and every claim they seek to raise in federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), (c);

15

Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 515-16 (1982). A district court may not grant the writ unless state

16

court remedies are exhausted, or there is “an absence of available state corrective process,” or such

17

process has been “rendered ineffective.” See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A)-(B).
CONCLUSION

18
19

For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows.

20

1.

21
22

The Clerk is directed to substitute California Attorney General Matthew Rodriquez

as Respondent.
2.

The petition is dismissed with leave to amend. Within twenty-eight (28) days of

23

the date of this order, Petitioner shall file an amended petition. The amended petition must

24

include the caption and civil case number used in this order (21-cv-02009 HSG) and the words

25

“AMENDED PETITION” on the first page. Because an amended petition completely replaces the

26

previous petitions, Petitioner must include in his amended petition all the claims he wishes to

27

present. Petitioner may not incorporate material from the prior petition by reference. Failure to

28

file an amended petition in accordance with this order will result in dismissal of this action for
3

1
2
3
4
5

failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 3/31/2021
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4