Dominguez v. Kernan, No. 18-55209 (9th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
The Ninth Circuit vacated the district court's dismissal of a 28 U.S.C. 2254 habeas corpus petition asserting that California's second prosecution of petitioner violated the Double Jeopardy Clause. While the petition was pending, the state trial court vacated petitioner's convictions under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and the state elected to retry him on the charge of conspiracy to commit murder. The district court dismissed the petition as moot.
The panel held that the petition was not moot because it continued to present a live controversy where petitioner remained in custody, continued to claim he was in custody in violation of the Constitution, and continued to present precisely the same legal claim that he presented when his petition was filed. Furthermore, because petitioner's detention was no longer attributable to a state court judgment, proceeding under section 2254 was no longer appropriate, and he was free to seek habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. 2241(a) and (c)(3). On remand, the district court may convert the petition or dismiss it without prejudice.
Court Description: Habeas Corpus. The panel vacated the district court’s dismissal of Florencio Dominguez’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition asserting that the state of California’s second prosecution of him violates the Double Jeopardy Clause, and remanded. Dominguez was charged with murder. After his trial ended in a hung jury, the trial court dismissed the case and the state filed a new complaint, charging Dominguez with murder and conspiracy to commit murder. Dominguez filed a demurrer, arguing the second prosecution violated his rights under the Double Jeopardy Clause and California law, but the trial court overruled his demurrer, and Dominguez was tried and convicted. Dominguez then asserted his double jeopardy claim in the § 2254 petition. While that petition was pending, the state trial court vacated Dominguez’s convictions under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and the state has elected to retry him on the charge of conspiracy to commit murder. The state placed Dominguez in pretrial custody, where he remains. Citing the state court’s decision vacating the earlier convictions, the district court dismissed Dominguez’s federal habeas petition as moot. The panel held that Dominguez’s petition is not moot. The panel explained that the petition continues to present a live controversy because he remains in custody, continues to DOMINGUEZ V. KERNAN 3 claim he is in custody in violation of the Constitution of the United States, and continues to present precisely the same legal claim that he presented when his petition was filed – that the state’s second prosecution of him, which remains ongoing, violates his federal constitutional right not to be twice placed in jeopardy for the same offense. The panel also held that because Dominguez’s detention is no longer attributable to a state court judgment, proceeding under § 2254 is no longer appropriate, and he is free to seek habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a) and (c)(3) instead. The panel held that, to proceed under § 2241, Dominguez is not required to dismiss his § 2254 petition and file a new petition under § 2241. The panel held that just as a court may convert a § 2241 petition to a § 2254 petition when a pretrial detainee is convicted while a petition is pending, a court has the authority to convert a § 2254 petition into a § 2241 petition when, as here, a petitioner’s convictions are vacated during the pendency of the petition and the petitioner has become a pretrial detainee. The panel instructed that the district court on remand shall, either upon Dominguez’s request or at the court’s initiation but with Dominguez’s consent, convert the petition to one arising under § 2241. The panel instructed that if Dominguez elects not to convert the petition, the district court shall dismiss the petition without prejudice. 4 DOMINGUEZ V. KERNAN
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.