The opinion
1
2
3
4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7 AARON BROWN, Case No. 19-cv-04399-HSG
8 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS;
9 v. GRANTING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN
FORMA PAUPERIS; DENYING
10 DEPT. 15, et al., PENDING MOTIONS AS MOOT;
DENYING CERTIFICATE OF
11 Respondent. APPEALABILITY
12
13 Petitioner has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
14 § 2254 challenging state court decisions in May and June 2019 that denied his Mardsen motion
15 and that found him incompetent to stand trial pursuant to California Penal Code § 1370. Dkt. No.
16 13. Petitioner alleges that the state court decisions violated his right to effective assistance of
17 counsel and his right to be free of double jeopardy, and that the state court made these unfavorable
18 rulings in retaliation for his accessing the courts. Dkt. No. 13 at 5.
19 STANDARD OF REVIEW
20 This Court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person in
21 custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in
22 violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). A
23 district court considering an application for a writ of habeas corpus shall “award the writ or issue
24 an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it
25 appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto.” 28
26 U.S.C. § 2243.
27 //
1 DISCUSSION
2 Section 2254 allows a federal court to consider whether a state prisoner’s custody pursuant
3 to a state court judgment violates the federal Constitution or federal law or federal treaties. 28
4 U.S.C. § 2254(a). The instant petition challenges a competency finding made during the course of
5 a state court trial, and not the conviction or judgment that has resulted in the petitioner’s custody.
6 This Court therefore may not review the challenged state court rulings. If petitioner is being held
7 in custody pursuant to a conviction that he believes violates the federal Constitution or federal
8 law, he may file a habeas petition in this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) to challenge the
9 conviction and related custody after the conviction is final and he has exhausted his state court
10 remedies.1 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b).
11 CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
12 The federal rules governing habeas cases brought by state prisoners require a district court
13 that issues an order denying a habeas petition to either grant or deny therein a certificate of
14 appealability. See Rules Governing § 2254 Case, Rule 11(a). A judge shall grant a certificate of
15 appealability “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional
16 right,” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), and the certificate must indicate which issues satisfy this standard.
17 Id. § 2253(c)(3). “Where a district court has rejected the constitutional claims on the merits, the
18 showing required to satisfy § 2253(c) is straightforward: [t]he petitioner must demonstrate that
19 reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable
20 or wrong.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Here, petitioner has not made such a
21 showing, and, accordingly, a certificate of appealability will be denied.
22 CONCLUSION
23 For the reasons stated above, the Court orders as follows. Petitioner’s requests for leave to
24 proceed in forma pauperis are GRANTED. Dkt. Nos. 8, 14. The Court DISMISSES the petition
25 for a writ of habeas corpus for failure to state a cognizable claim for federal habeas relief and
26
27
1 DENIES a certificate of appealability. The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of respondent,
2 deny all pending motions as moot, and close the file.
3 IT IS SO ORDERED.
4 Dated: 9/27/2019
5 . °
NA S. GILLIAM, JR. /
6 United States District Judge
7
8
9
10
11
a 12
13
14
15
16
= 17
Z 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28