Marcus Fletcher v. Warden Kevin R Chappell et al
Filing
5
ORDER DISMISSING PETITION by Judge R. Gary Klausner, (shb)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
) CV 13-4988 RGK
)
)
Petitioner,
) ORDER DISMISSING PETITION
)
v.
)
)
)
KEVIN CHAPPELL, Warden,
California State Prison at San Quentin, )
)
)
)
Respondent.
)
MARCUS FLETCHER,
I.
18
BACKGOUND
Petitioner was convicted and sentenced to death in Riverside County for the
19
20
April 2005 murder of Rafi Ibrahim, a convenience store clerk, and the attempted
21
murder of Celesdino Olea, a customer at the store. The crimes were committed
22
during the course of a robbery.1 The judgment of death was entered against
23
Petitioner on November 18, 2011 and he applied for counsel on direct appeal with
24
the Supreme Court of California on December 23, 2011.2 Counsel has not yet
25
been appointed.
26
27
28
1
As this matter is still on direct appeal, the facts of the underlying offense have been taken from a news article in
the Riverside Press Enterprise found at http://www.pe.com/local-news/local-news-headlines/20110727-temeculadeath-to-clerk-s-killer-jury-says.ece.
2
Procedural information on the underlying appeal has been taken from the California Supreme Court docket located
at http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=0&doc_id=1998485&doc_no=S198309
ORDER DISMISSING PETITION - 1
On July 11, 2013, Petitioner filed a document entitled “28 U.S.C. § 2403(b)
1
2
Intervention by United States or State: ‘Constitutional Question’”. (Docket No. 1.)
3
On July 26, 2013 Petitioner filed a second document entitled “Notice of
4
Amendment to Complaint.” (Docket No. 3.) At the time of his sentence,
5
Petitioner was ordered to pay statutorily mandated restitution. He is apparently
6
seeking mandamus or injunctive relief from this Court directing the State of
7
California to stop taking 55% of all money Petitioner obtains in prison in
8
satisfaction of the restitution order. Petitioner believes the state’s actions amount
9
to an unconstitutional taking or seizure since his direct appeal is still pending and
10
thus there is no final adjudication of his guilt or the reasonableness of his sentence.
11
12
II.
DISCUSSION
Petitioner has cited 28 U.S.C. § 2403(b) apparently for the proposition that
13
he should be allowed to bring his putative constitutional claims in federal court.
14
That statute provides that a state may be allowed to intervene in an action where
15
the constitutionality of a state law is in question. Id. However, it specifically
16
limits those instances to cases where, for obvious reasons, the state or one of its
17
officials or employees is not already a party to the action. Id. Kevin Chappell, the
18
Warden of the State Prison at San Quentin where Petitioner is housed, is an
19
employee of the State of California and the respondent in this action. For that
20
reason, the provisions of 28 U.S.C § 2403(b) allowing for intervention do not
21
apply. Petitioner cannot invoke this Court’s jurisdiction by way of that statute.
22
Further, Petitioner cannot secure this Court’s jurisdiction through the Anti-
23
Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) codified at 28
24
U.S.C. § 2254. Though AEDPA will provide a mechanism for Petitioner’s
25
challenges to his conviction and sentence when his direct appeal is complete, it
26
does not provide the mechanism through which Petitioner may challenge the
27
state’s actions in seizing money in satisfaction of the restitution order. Habeas
28
proceedings are not designed to provide an avenue for prisoners to challenge the
ORDER DISMISSING PETITION - 2
1
imposition of or execution of a restitution order. This is because the language of
2
section 2254 precludes federal courts from reviewing challenges to the non-
3
custodial portion of criminal sentences. Bailey v. Hill, 599 F.3d 976, 981 (9th
4
2010).
5
Petitioner may believe that the All Writs Act applies to this case. Other pro
6
se litigates have recently sought to invoke federal court jurisdiction by way of that
7
statute. In an effort to avoid unnecessary future pro se filings in that regard, the
8
Court will address that statute here. The All Writs Act empowers federal courts to
9
issue “all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and
10
agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). But Petitioner
11
cannot establish this Court’s jurisdiction over his state court conviction and
12
sentence and the All Writs Act does not create that jurisdiction. By it’s plain
13
language it allows the Court to issue orders in support of its jurisdiction in a given
14
case. However, federal court jurisdiction is a necessary prerequisite to the issuance
15
of those orders or writs. That jurisdiction does not exist here. Petitioner’s direct
16
appeal is pending before the California Supreme Court and he is free to raise his
17
claims in that forum. Principles of comity and federalism limit this Court’s ability
18
to interfere with state court appellate proceedings that may vindicate the very
19
rights that Petitioner seeks to have considered in this forum. Petitioner may yet
20
obtain relief from the restitution order.
21
Finally, addressing Petitioner’s claim that the collection of the restitution
22
before his appeal has been heard creates a due process violation, the Court notes
23
that Petitioner’s conviction and sentence are presumptively valid. He was charged,
24
tried, and convicted by a jury of his peers. That same jury made a sentencing
25
recommendation based on evidence before it and the trial judge imposed sentence,
26
including the restitution order, consistent with state statute. He has been afforded
27
the process he was due. Well established state appellate procedures continue to
28
ORDER DISMISSING PETITION - 3
1
afford him due process in the review of the propriety of his conviction and
2
sentence. It is not this Court’s role to interfere with those proceedings.
3
For all of the forgoing reasons, this matter is dismissed with prejudice.
4
IT IS SO ORERED.
5
Dated this 8th day of August, 2013
6
7
8
_____________________________
R. GARY KLAUSNER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER DISMISSING PETITION - 4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?