STEPHEN REDD V. PATRICIA GUERRERO, ET AL, No. 21-55464 (9th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
A California court sentenced appellant Plaintiff to death. That same year, the California legislature codified a longstanding judicial rule guaranteeing the appointment of postconviction relief counsel to indigent prisoners who had been convicted and sentenced to death. Plaintiff requested the appointment of postconviction habeas counsel 26 years ago. Plaintiff filed this action under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, claiming that by failing to appoint counsel as promised and so preventing him from developing and prosecuting his state habeas corpus petition for over two decades, state officials are violating his procedural due process rights. He sought a declaration that state officials’ “failure to timely appoint counsel is in violation” of his due process rights. The district court dismissed his complaint for failure to state a claim.
The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal. The panel held that Plaintiff has standing because he has adequately shown that the declaratory relief he seeks would redress his injuries. The panel agreed with the district court that abstention under O’Shea v. Littleton, as to Plaintiff’s individual request for declaratory relief, was not appropriate. The panel held that California is under no federal constitutional obligation to appoint postconviction counsel for all indigent capital prisoners. But Plaintiff stated a viable due process claim by alleging that he has been deprived of a valuable property interest for over a quarter century. The panel reversed the district court’s dismissal of Plaintiff’s complaint. However, the panel held that Plaintiff’s complaint, as presently drafted, did not plausibly allege that the state has failed to adequately protect his liberty interest in petitioning for habeas corpus.
Court Description: Procedural Due Process/Prisoner Civil Rights The panel reversed the district court’s dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim, and remanded, in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action brought by Stephen Redd, a California state prisoner sentenced to death, alleging that state officials are violating his procedural due process rights by failing to appoint postconviction relief counsel as required by California law.
In 1997, the same year that a California court sentenced Redd to death, the California legislature codified a longstanding judicial rule guaranteeing the appointment of postconviction relief counsel to indigent prisoners who had been convicted and sentenced to death. Redd requested the appointment of postconviction habeas counsel 26 years ago. No lawyer has been appointed.
The panel held that Redd has standing because he has adequately shown that the declaratory relief he seeks would redress his injuries. The panel agreed with the district court that abstention under O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488 (1974), as to Redd’s individual request for declaratory relief was not appropriate. Providing declaratory relief in this case would not require the federal court to monitor the substance of ongoing state criminal proceedings and would allow Reed’s habeas proceeding to finally move forward.
Addressing the merits, the panel held that California is under no federal constitutional obligation to appoint postconviction counsel for all indigent capital prisoners. But because California has guaranteed the appointment of such counsel by statute, Redd stated a viable due process claim by alleging that he has been deprived of a valuable property interest for over a quarter century. Because his property interest claim was legally plausible, the panel reversed the district court’s dismissal of Redd’s complaint.
However, the panel held that Redd’s complaint as presently drafted did not plausibly allege that the state has failed to adequately protect his liberty interest in petitioning for habeas corpus. Under Supreme Court precedent, the absence of appointed counsel, without more, does not preclude Redd from vindicating his liberty interest in petitioning for habeas corpus. Redd had not alleged that he was unable to withdraw his request for appointment of counsel and instead litigate his habeas petition pro se.
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.