United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER OF DISMISSAL DOCKET NO. 19
M. CHEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Briggs filed this pro se action seeking a writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Respondent
has moved to dismiss the habeas petition as untimely and
procedurally defaulted. Mr. Briggs has not opposed the
motion. For the reasons discussed below, the Court determines
that the action is timely but procedurally defaulted, and
dismisses the action as procedurally defaulted.
State Court Activities
Briggs pled no contest and was convicted in Santa Clara
County Superior Court of making a criminal threat. He also
admitted having suffered a prior conviction. In September
2013, he was sentenced to a term of four years in prison.
Briggs appealed. The California Court of Appeal affirmed the
judgment of conviction on September 11, 2014. See People
v. Briggs, No. H040202, 2014 WL 4471546 (Cal.Ct.App.
Sept. 11, 2014). Mr. Briggs did not file a petition for
review in the California Supreme Court.
Briggs filed three habeas petitions in the state courts. On
November 4, 2014, he signed and apparently mailed a habeas
petition in the California Court of Appeal, challenging both
his 2006 parole revocation in another case and his enhanced
sentence in this case due to the parole revocation. (State
Petition # 1). The California Court of Appeal summarily
denied State Petition # 1 on December 16, 2014.
29, 2015, Mr. Briggs filed a petition for writ of habeas
corpus in the California Supreme Court, again challenging
both his 2006 parole revocation in another case and his
enhanced sentence in this case due to the parole revocation.
(State Petition # 2.) On October 14, 2015, the California
Supreme Court denied State Petition # 2 in an order citing
In re Robbins, 18 Cal.4th 770, 780 (Cal. 1998), and
In re Swain, 34 Cal. 2d 300, 304 (Cal. 1949).
See Docket No. 19-1 at 46.
September 13, 2015, Mr. Briggs signed and apparently mailed
another petition for writ of habeas corpus in the California
Supreme Court. (State Petition # 3.) On December 9, 2015, the
California Supreme Court denied State Petition # 3 in an
order citing In re Clark, 5 Cal.4th 750, 767-69
(Cal. 1993). See Docket No. 19-1 at 70.
Earlier Federal Court Filings
not mentioned in Respondent's moving papers -- and before
filing this action --Mr. Briggs made some earlier efforts to
file a federal habeas action challenging his current
April 15, 2015, Mr. Briggs filed a one-page document entitled
“petition for writ of habeas corpus and motion for stay
and abeyance pending exhaustion of claim in state
court.” Docket No. 1 in Briggs v. State of
California, N.D. Cal. No. 15-cv-1853 NJV. Other than its
title, the document does not purport to be a petition for
writ of habeas corpus; the document does not identify the
conviction being challenged or assert any claim for relief,
and instead simply states that Mr. Briggs is pursuing a
habeas petition in the Santa Clara County Superior Court and
requests a stay pending the exhaustion of state court
remedies. Id. Magistrate Judge Vadas construed the
document to be a letter requesting a stay (rather than an
actual habeas petition), and dismissed the action without
prejudice because Mr. Briggs had not filed a petition for
writ of habeas corpus although he was notified of that
deficiency and given an opportunity to file a habeas
petition. Docket No. 9 in Briggs v. State of
California, N.D. Cal. No. 15-cv-1853 NJV.
months later, Mr. Briggs filed a form petition for writ of
habeas corpus in the federal court. The habeas petition
contained several claims for relief and challenged his
current conviction. The habeas petition was mailed to the
court on September 16, 2015, and stamped “filed”
on October 5, 2015. Docket No. 1 in Briggs v. State of
California, Case No. 15-cv-4576 . At the same time, Mr.
Briggs also filed a motion to stay proceedings in federal
court while he exhausted his state court remedies. Docket No.
2 in Briggs v. State of California, Case No.
15-cv-4576. On October 29, 2015, Magistrate Judge Vadas (to
whom Case No. 15-cv-4576 was assigned) construed the petition
to have only unexhausted claims, and dismissed it ...