Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Wilridge v. Kernan

United States District Court, N.D. California

May 30, 2018

QUINN WILRIDGE, Petitioner,
v.
SCOTT KERNAN, etal., Respondents.

          ORDER OF DISMISSAL RE: DKT. 1, 7

          SUSAN ILLSTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Quinn Wilridge, an inmate at the Correctional Training Facility, filed this pro se action seeking a writ of mandate. His petition is now before the court for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court also considers his request for appointment of counsel.

         BACKGROUND

         Quinn Wilridge was convicted in Santa Clara County Superior Court of robbery and was found to have suffered six prior convictions. On February 1, 2002, he was sentenced to 30 years to life in prison.

         In 2009, Wilridge filed a federal petition for writ of habeas corpus to challenge his state court conviction and sentence, Wilridge v. Marshall, N. D. Cal. No. 09-cv-2236 SI (the "2009 case"). The key issue litigated in the 2009 case was whether that petition had been filed before the expiration of the habeas statute of limitations period. Counsel was appointed for Wilridge and an evidentiary hearing was held to determine whether Wilridge was entitled to equitable tolling due to his mental illness. The court concluded that the petition was time-barred.

         In the present action, Wilridge attempts to assert claims for the failure to bring him to federal court to attend two of the three sessions of an evidentiary hearing in the 2009 case, notwithstanding that a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum had been issued for him to be brought to court.

         A. Allegations In The Petition For Writ of Mandate

         The petition for writ of mandate alleges the following:

         On January 27, 2015, this court issued a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum for Wilridge, who was then housed at the California Men's Colony in San Luis Obispo, to be brought to federal court for an evidentiary hearing scheduled for February 4, 2015 in the 2009 case. The warden at the California Men's Colony allegedly failed to follow a court-ordered subpoena and writ for Wilridge's attendance. The Deputy Attorney General representing the warden allegedly on his own quashed that subpoena. Wilridge's attorney allegedly knew Wilridge wanted to testify at the hearing but failed to ensure that Wilridge was present for the evidentiary hearing. Docket No. 1 at 9-14.

         The petition for writ of mandate lists five causes of action: (1) writ of mandate against "respondent" for failing to do his ministerial duty to comply with the court's orders; (2) breach of contract by Wilridge's counsel; (3) inadequate legal work by Wilridge's counsel; (4) breach of fiduciary duty based on counsel's careless legal work; and (5) "defendants" denied petitioner his day in court by failing to do their ministerial duty to comply with the writ. Docket No. 1 at 17-22. The petition also contains a cause of action captioned "declaratory relief requesting a declaration that respondent was required to comply with the requirements of California Penal Code section 5058 and California's Administrative Procedures Act, see Cal. Gov't Code section 11370, "before implementation of a scheme to deny a prisoner his right, his day in court, and not follow a court order." Docket No. 1 at 33.

         The respondents named in the petition for writ of mandate are three prison wardens, the director of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, and the attorneys[1] who were appointed to represent Wilridge in the 2009 action.

         The petition further alleges that this court erred in dismissing the petition in the 2009 case as time-barred because this court did not first hold a competency hearing and a valid evidentiary hearing. The evidentiary hearing allegedly was not "valid" because Wilridge was not present. Docket No. 1 at 25.

         The petition further alleges that the court should sanction the Deputy Attorney General for not complying with the writ and subpoena in the 2009 case. Docket No. 1 at 26. As sanctions, Wilridge requests that the court grant the writ of habeas corpus in the 2009 case, allow the petition in the 2009 case to be heard on the merits, or award damages. Id. at 26.

         B. The Evidentiary Hearing In The 2009 Case

         The court takes judicial notice of the documents filed in the 2009 case. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.