Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-04399/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-04399-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AARON BROWN,

Petitioner,

v.

DEPT. 15, et al.,

Respondent.

Case No. 19-cv-04399-HSG 

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS; 

GRANTING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN 

FORMA PAUPERIS; DENYING 

PENDING MOTIONS AS MOOT; 

DENYING CERTIFICATE OF 

APPEALABILITY

Petitioner has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254 challenging state court decisions in May and June 2019 that denied his Mardsen motion

and that found him incompetent to stand trial pursuant to California Penal Code § 1370. Dkt. No. 

13. Petitioner alleges that the state court decisions violated his right to effective assistance of 

counsel and his right to be free of double jeopardy, and that the state court made these unfavorable 

rulings in retaliation for his accessing the courts. Dkt. No. 13 at 5. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

This Court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person in 

custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in 

violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). A 

district court considering an application for a writ of habeas corpus shall “award the writ or issue 

an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it 

appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto.” 28 

U.S.C. § 2243. 

//

//

Case 4:19-cv-04399-HSG Document 16 Filed 09/27/19 Page 1 of 3
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

DISCUSSION

Section 2254 allows a federal court to consider whether a state prisoner’s custody pursuant 

to a state court judgment violates the federal Constitution or federal law or federal treaties. 28 

U.S.C. § 2254(a). The instant petition challenges a competency finding made during the course of 

a state court trial, and not the conviction or judgment that has resulted in the petitioner’s custody. 

This Court therefore may not review the challenged state court rulings. If petitioner is being held 

in custody pursuant to a conviction that he believes violates the federal Constitution or federal 

law, he may file a habeas petition in this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) to challenge the 

conviction and related custody after the conviction is final and he has exhausted his state court 

remedies.1 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b). 

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

The federal rules governing habeas cases brought by state prisoners require a district court 

that issues an order denying a habeas petition to either grant or deny therein a certificate of 

appealability. See Rules Governing § 2254 Case, Rule 11(a). A judge shall grant a certificate of 

appealability “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 

right,” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), and the certificate must indicate which issues satisfy this standard. 

Id. § 2253(c)(3). “Where a district court has rejected the constitutional claims on the merits, the 

showing required to satisfy § 2253(c) is straightforward: [t]he petitioner must demonstrate that 

reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable 

or wrong.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Here, petitioner has not made such a 

showing, and, accordingly, a certificate of appealability will be denied.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Court orders as follows. Petitioner’s requests for leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis are GRANTED. Dkt. Nos. 8, 14. The Court DISMISSES the petition 

for a writ of habeas corpus for failure to state a cognizable claim for federal habeas relief and 

 

1 The Court notes that petitioner is challenging recent state court decisions, and that it is therefore 

unlikely that petitioner’s conviction is final or that his state court remedies have been exhausted.

Case 4:19-cv-04399-HSG Document 16 Filed 09/27/19 Page 2 of 3
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

DENIES a certificate of appealability. The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of respondent, 

deny all pending motions as moot, and close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 4:19-cv-04399-HSG Document 16 Filed 09/27/19 Page 3 of 3