STANLEY v. CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

No. 92-16497.

Attorney(S)

J. Frank McCabe, Goorjian McCabe, San Francisco, CA, for petitioner-appellant. William G. Prahl, Deputy Atty. Gen., Sacramento, CA, for respondents-appellees.

Judges

Thomas Tang
Diarmuid Fionntain O'Scannlain

Acts

Judiciary And Judicial Procedure — Habeas Corpus — Particular Proceedings — Power To Grant Writ

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

Jerry Stanley was convicted in California state court in 1984 for the murder of his wife and sentenced to death. His direct appeal of this conviction remains pending before the California Supreme Court. In January 1990, Stanley filed a federal habeas corpus petition alleging conflict of interest and extortion by his appointed counsel on the state appeal. This petition was transferred to the Eastern District of California. Stanley filed a second habeas petition in February 1992, amending the first, alleging misconduct by a newly appointed state appellate attorney and threats involving the attorney’s family. Neither petition named Stanley’s custodian as a respondent, and none of the named respondents were served. A magistrate judge recommended dismissal on abstention grounds under Younger v. Harris, which the district court adopted in June 1992. Stanley then filed a timely pro se notice of appeal, and counsel was appointed for him in December 1992.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the district court had jurisdiction to consider Stanley's habeas corpus petition given that he failed to name his custodian as a respondent.
Whether Stanley’s claims regarding ineffective assistance and misconduct of his state appellate counsel were ripe for federal habeas review while his direct appeal remained pending.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971)	Abstention doctrine precluding federal interference with ongoing state proceedings.	District court dismissed petition on abstention grounds citing Younger.
Brittingham v. United States, 982 F.2d 378 (9th Cir. 1992)	Requirement that habeas petition name the state officer having custody as respondent.	Court held failure to name custodian deprived federal court of jurisdiction.
Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244 (9th Cir. 1989)	Same as Brittingham; personal jurisdiction depends on naming proper respondent.	Supported conclusion that district court lacked jurisdiction due to improper respondent.
Sherwood v. Tomkins, 716 F.2d 632 (9th Cir. 1983)	Ripeness requirement for federal habeas claims regarding appellate counsel ineffectiveness.	Court expressed doubt that claims were ripe while direct appeal was pending.
Tacho v. Martinez, 862 F.2d 1376 (9th Cir. 1988)	Permits allegations of appellate counsel ineffectiveness in state habeas petitions after direct appeal.	Court noted Stanley could still raise claims in state habeas petition post-appeal.
People v. Harris, 19 Cal.App.4th 709, 23 Cal.Rptr.2d 586 (1993)	State precedent allowing ineffective assistance claims in state habeas corpus petitions.	Referenced as an example of state procedure available to Stanley after direct appeal.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analyzed the procedural posture of Stanley's petitions and found a critical jurisdictional defect: neither petition named the state officer having custody of Stanley as required by federal habeas corpus rules, specifically Rule 2(a) of 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This failure deprived the district court of personal jurisdiction. Consequently, the court vacated the district court’s dismissal and remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction unless Stanley timely amended his petition to name the correct custodian.

Regarding the substance of Stanley’s claims about ineffective assistance and misconduct by his appellate counsel, the court expressed grave doubt that these claims were ripe for federal habeas review while the direct appeal was still pending before the California Supreme Court. The court emphasized that even if the direct appeal were resolved unfavorably to Stanley, he could still raise such claims in a state habeas petition. Thus, federal intervention at this stage was premature.

Holding and Implications

VACATED and REMANDED with instructions to dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction unless Stanley amends to name the proper custodian and demonstrates ripeness of his claims.

The direct effect of this decision is that Stanley’s federal habeas petition cannot proceed without proper respondent designation and a showing that his claims are ripe for federal review. The court did not establish new precedent but reinforced existing jurisdictional and ripeness doctrines in the context of federal habeas corpus petitions.

Show full summary ...

JERRY F. STANLEY, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, v. CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT, ET AL., RESPONDENTS-APPELLEES.

ORDER

Jerry Stanley was convicted in California state court in 1984 for the murder of his wife and was sentenced to death. He has appealed the conviction to the California Supreme Court, where his appeal is still pending.

On January 11, 1990, Stanley filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that his appointed counsel was representing him in the California appeal under a conflict of interest and had attempted to extort money from him. Stanley's petition later was transferred by order under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d) to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California.

In his habeas petition, Stanley named the Supreme Court of California, the California Public Defender, and attorney Mike Pescetta as the respondents, none of whom were served. On February 6, 1992, a federal magistrate judge ordered the Federal Public Defender to report on the status of the petition and on whether Stanley had secured representation.

On February 18, 1992, Stanley filed a second petition for habeas corpus, which the magistrate judge deemed to be an amendment of the first petition. There Stanley alleged that a new attorney, Frank Hagie, had been appointed to represent him in his state appeal. According to Stanley, Hagie, had stolen property from him relating to his state appeal and had stated that he will not work on his appeal effectively. Stanley also alleged that his family had threatened the lives of Hagie and Hagie's family in response to these actions. The second petition named only the California Supreme Court and Frank Hagie as respondents. Again, neither respondent was served.

On February 24, 1992, the Federal Public Defender submitted its status report which stated that Stanley's direct appeal of his conviction was still pending before the California Supreme Court and as of that time, no counsel had been appointed to assist him with his federal petition. The magistrate judge thereupon recommended that the district court dismiss Stanley's petition. On June 2, 1992, the district court adopted the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations and dismissed the petition on abstention grounds citing Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971).

On August 21, 1992, the district court issued a certificate of probable cause and a pro se notice of appeal was filed timely. On December 8, 1992, this court appointed J. Frank McCabe to represent Stanley in this appeal which is listed on this court's death penalty case docket.

We suggest that the district court consider appointing J. Frank McCabe to represent Stanley upon remand.

A petitioner for habeas corpus relief must name the state officer having custody of him or her as the respondent to the petition. 28 foll. U.S.C. § 2254 Rule 2(a). This person typically is the warden of the facility in which the petitioner is incarcerated. Brittingham v. United States, 982 F.2d 378, 379 (9th Cir. 1992). Failure to name the petitioner's custodian as a respondent deprives federal courts of personal jurisdiction. Id.; Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir. 1989).

Neither of Stanley's two petitions named his custodian as a respondent and therefore the district court lacked jurisdiction. For this reason, we vacate its dismissal and remand with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction unless Stanley can timely amend his petition to name the correct party as respondent and can demonstrate that his claims regarding the ineffectiveness and misconduct of his state appellate counsel are ripe for federal habeas review. See Sherwood v. Tomkins, 716 F.2d 632 (9th Cir. 1983). Regarding the latter point, we have grave doubt that petitioner can demonstrate ripeness so long as the direct appeal remains pending in the California Supreme Court. Id. We also note that, even if that court were to affirm Stanley's appeal, he still will be free to allege ineffectiveness of appellate counsel in a state petition for habeas corpus. See Tacho v. Martinez, 862 F.2d 1376, 1381 (9th Cir. 1988); see, e.g., People v. Harris, 19 Cal.App.4th 709, 23 Cal.Rptr.2d 586 (1993).

VACATED and REMANDED with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.