Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-08057/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-08057-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
William Lloyd Nelson
Petitioner
J. M. Robertson
Respondent

Document Text:

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

WILLIAM LLOYD NELSON,

Petitioner,

v.

J. M. ROBERTSON,

Respondent.

Case No. 19-cv-08057-EMC 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE 

TO AMEND

Docket Nos. 1, 8

I. INTRODUCTION

William Lloyd Nelson, an inmate at Pelican Bay State Prison, filed this pro se action for a 

writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 to challenge his conviction for attempted 

murder of a peace officer. His petition is now before the court for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2243 and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. 

In this order, the Court determines that Mr. Nelson’s 375-page petition must be replaced by a 

much shorter amended petition that is limited to relevant details and alleges only violations of Mr. 

Nelson’s federal constitutional rights.

II. BACKGROUND

Mr. Nelson was convicted in 2014 in Humboldt County Superior Court of attempted 

murder of a peace officer engaged in the performance of his duties and was found to have 

intentionally discharged a firearm during the course of the offense. On January 15, 2015, he was 

sentenced to life with the possibility of parole plus a consecutive 20-year term of imprisonment.

The crime was not a complicated or long-lasting one. The California Court of Appeal was 

able to describe in less than two pages the shootout at Mr. Nelson’s house during which Mr. 

Case 3:19-cv-08057-EMC Document 9 Filed 03/16/20 Page 1 of 8
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

Nelson shot a deputy (who avoided catastrophic injury because the bullet lodged in the body 

armor he was wearing under his uniform). See People v. Nelson, Case No. A144063, Cal. Ct. 

App. Opinion filed August 29, 2017, at 2-3. The case was not a “who-dunnit” sort of case – Mr. 

Nelson admittedly shot the deputy. See, e.g, Docket No. 1 at 77. 

The trial apparently was not lengthy. That the trial lasted a matter of days rather than 

weeks can be inferred from the length of the transcript: the prosecution rested its case on page 589 

of the reporter’s transcript, the jury instructions were underway by page 733 of the reporter’s 

transcript, and the trial court received a note from the deliberating jury on page 805 of the 

reporter’s transcript. 

III. DISCUSSION

A. Review Of Petition

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 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. Summary dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are vague or 

conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false. See Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 

490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990).

The petition for writ of habeas corpus has several problems that make it necessary for Mr. 

Nelson to file an amended petition. The first problem is that the petition is unacceptably long and 

confusing for the claims alleged. Mr. Nelson’s petition is 375 pages long and asserts seventeen 

claims for relief. Not only is petition exceedingly long, it overflows with cross-references, 

incorporations by reference, and a hodgepodge of uncommon acronyms. Approximately 1,600 

pages of exhibits came with the petition; those exhibits are marked with a confusing nonconsecutive alpha-numeric system. 

The extreme length of the petition appears to be due, in part, to Mr. Nelson’s 

Case 3:19-cv-08057-EMC Document 9 Filed 03/16/20 Page 2 of 8
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

misunderstanding of the role of the federal habeas court, as he appears to think that he can 

relitigate his guilt here. But a federal habeas proceeding is not a second trial on guilt. Rather, the 

federal habeas court can only grant relief if the petitioner is in custody in violation of the 

“Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States,” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a), and focuses on 

whether the state court’s adjudication of such claimed violations “resulted in a decision that was 

contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as 

determined by the Supreme Court of the United States,” or “resulted in a decision that was based 

on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court 

proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). The state court’s factual determinations are presumed correct 

in this federal habeas action and the petitioner has the burden of rebutting the presumption of 

correctness by clear and convincing evidence. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1). Merely positing an 

alternative version of the facts is not enough to overcome the presumption of correctness. 

Another factor contributing to the excessive length of the petition is that Mr. Nelson 

spends an inordinate amount of pages describing his long history with local law enforcement 

agencies and the criminal justice system, many of which details appear to be irrelevant. For 

example, Mr. Nelson offers up his version of the facts in a 10-page “introduction,” then in a 23-

page “statement of the case concerning preincident factual background,” and yet again in a 13 

page “statement of the case concerning the underlying incident.” Docket No. 1 at 25-79.1 This 

introductory material describes his several run-ins and disagreements with law enforcement and 

the criminal justice system in Humboldt County over a period of several years, as well details such 

as Mr. Nelson’s work history in 1996-97 (id. at 54), a home loan in 1998 (id. at 55), his 

girlfriend’s false statements to police starting in 2013 (id. at 58-59). Much of the text is 

excessively detailed and unimportant to the legal issues that a federal habeas court can consider. 

A habeas petitioner must “specify all the grounds for relief available to [him]” and “state 

the facts supporting each ground.” Rule 2(c), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United 

1 These sections provide good examples of Mr. Nelson’s many odd abbreviations/acronyms. Mr. 

Nelson uses “PFB” as an abbreviation for the “statement of the case concerning preincident factual 

background” and “SUI” as an abbreviation for the “statement of the case concerning the 

underlying incident.” Docket No. 1 at 40. 

Case 3:19-cv-08057-EMC Document 9 Filed 03/16/20 Page 3 of 8
4

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

States District Courts; see also Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491-92 (9th Cir. 1990) 

(habeas petitioner must state his claims with sufficient specificity); Wacht v. Cardwell, 604 F.2d 

1245, 1246-47 (9th Cir. 1979) (same). A primary purpose of Rule 2(c)’s demand that habeas 

petitioners plead with particularity is to assist the district court in determining whether the 

respondent should be ordered to show cause why the writ should not be granted. Mayle v. Felix, 

545 U.S. 644, 655-56 (2005) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2253); id. at 655 (federal habeas petitions 

“expected to state facts that point to a real possibility of constitutional error”). Habeas actions are 

also governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to the extent those rules are not inconsistent 

with the habeas rules or any statute. Habeas Rule 12. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(e) 

requires that each averment of a pleading be “simple, concise, and direct,” and may be the basis 

for dismissal. McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 1996) (affirming dismissal of 

complaint that was “argumentative, prolix, replete with redundancy, and largely irrelevant”).

The petition from Mr. Nelson does not comply with Rule 8(e). There are not a simple, 

concise and direct averments, and instead the rambling factual allegations are intertwined with 

excessive detail, excessive cross-references, and odd abbreviations. Prolix, confusing petitions 

such as the one petitioner filed in this case impose unfair burdens on litigants and judges and fail 

to perform the essential functions of a petition. 

Mr. Nelson must file an amended petition for writ of habeas corpus that provides simple, 

concise and direct allegations in support of each of his claims. He must assemble a 

straightforward narrative of his claims, eliminating irrelevant facts and opinions. And he should 

strive to avoid repeated introductions, avoid abbreviations/acronyms that are not well-known, and 

avoid excessive cross-references. Given the nature of the claims alleged in the petition, it appears 

that 80 pages would be more than enough to adequately allege the claims and supporting facts. 

Therefore, Mr. Nelson’s amended petition may not exceed 80 pages in length. The amended 

petition, like all filings, must be one-sided and have no more than 28 lines of text per page 

(regardless of whether typed or handwritten). 

The second problem with the petition is that it fails to identify any particular federal 

constitutional right that has been violated. Federal habeas relief is not available for state law 

Case 3:19-cv-08057-EMC Document 9 Filed 03/16/20 Page 4 of 8
5

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

errors. A “federal court may issue a writ of habeas corpus to a state prisoner ‘only on the ground 

that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.’” 

Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 216, 219 (2011) (citations omitted). It is the petitioner’s obligation 

to identify the particular provision of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States that 

was violated, and to provide a coherent statement of supporting facts showing such a violation. In

each claim in his amended petition, Mr. Nelson must identify each particular provision in the 

Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States that was violated. He also must allege coherent 

facts showing each such violation. Additionally, because of the limits of § 2254(e) mentioned 

above, he should cite to the U.S. Supreme Court holdings that provide clearly established federal 

law that supports relief for him. 

The third problem concerns the first claim, in which Mr. Nelson claims that materials were 

“suppressed” from him. Mr. Nelson urges that the prosecutor “conspired with the defense 

counsel” to suppress many reports and documents. Docket No. 1 at 80. It appears that Mr. Nelson 

is attempting to make a Brady claim for suppression of evidence, but his efforts to extend the 

prosecution’s duties under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), by putting defense counsel on 

the same side as the prosecution in the analysis is unavailing. He has not identified a single case, 

nor has the Court found one, where a court has determined (a) that defense counsel has an 

obligation under Brady to disclose materials to the defendant, or (b) that the prosecution has a duty 

under Brady to send to the defendant personally photocopies of the discovery materials that are 

turned over to defense counsel. The general rule is that service is to be made on defense counsel

rather than on the defendant personally when a criminal defendant is represented by counsel. See

Fed. R. Crim. P. 49(b) (“When these rules or a court order requires or permits service on a party 

represented by an attorney, service must be made on the attorney instead of the party, unless the

court orders otherwise.”); cf. Magee v. Super. Ct., 34 Cal. App. 3d 201, 213 (Cal. Ct. App. 1973) 

(quoting Board of Comm’rs v. Younger, 29 Cal. 147, 149 (1865) (‘“A party to an action may 

appear in his own proper person or by attorney, but he cannot do both. If he appears by attorney 

he must be heard through him, and it is indispensable to the decorum of the Court, and the due and 

orderly conduct of a cause that such attorney shall have the management and control of the action 

Case 3:19-cv-08057-EMC Document 9 Filed 03/16/20 Page 5 of 8
6

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

and his acts go unquestioned by any one except the party whom he represents.’”). In sum, Brady

and its progeny provide no basis for any claimed right of a criminal defendant to obtain directly 

from the government photocopies of the discovery that has been provided to the defense counsel. 

The idea that there is a federal constitutional right to obtain photocopies of discovery from 

one’s own attorney also is undermined by the fact that there are several specific statutory 

provisions prohibiting a criminal defendant from seeing some discovery. A provision in the 

California Penal Code specifically prohibits an attorney from disclosing to a criminal defendant 

certain information, such as the telephone number and address of victims and witnesses. See Cal. 

Penal Code § 1054.2; see also id. at § 1054.2(a)(3) (willful violation of the nondisclosure 

requirements is a misdemeanor); id. at § 1054.7 (disclosures otherwise required may be denied, 

restricted or deferred upon a showing of good cause, which “is limited to threats or possible 

danger to the safety of a victim or witness, possible loss or destruction of evidence, or possible 

compromise of other investigations by law enforcement”). And a federal statute prohibits the 

defendant (or defense counsel) from obtaining child pornography relevant to a prosecution, 

requiring instead that the material remain in the care, custody and control of either the government 

or the court. See 18 U.S.C. § 3509(m). For these reasons, Mr. Nelson has not demonstrated a 

clearly established federal constitutional right to photocopies of the discovery that has been 

provided to the defense in his criminal case. 

The fourth problem is that Mr. Nelson repeatedly alleges that conspiracies existed (e.g., 

among judges, prosecutors, defense counsel, and law enforcement) without any factual support. 

Conclusory allegations of a conspiracy unsupported by material facts are insufficient to state a 

claim. See Simmons v. Sacramento County Superior Court, 318 F.3d 1156, 1161 (9th Cir. 2003); 

Woodrum v. Woodward County, 866 F.2d 1121, 1126 (9th Cir. 1989). “‘A civil conspiracy is a 

combination of two or more persons who, by some concerted action, intend to accomplish some 

unlawful objective for the purpose of harming another which results in damage.’” See Gilbrook v. 

City of Westminster, 177 F.3d 839, 856 (9th Cir. 1999) (citation omitted). There must be a 

showing “that the conspiring parties reached a unity of purpose or a common design and 

understanding, or a meeting of the minds in an unlawful arrangement.” Id. (internal citation and 

Case 3:19-cv-08057-EMC Document 9 Filed 03/16/20 Page 6 of 8
7

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

quotation marks omitted). The petition’s conspiracy allegations do not aid Mr. Nelson because 

they are mere conclusions unsupported by any facts. 

B. Request For Delay

Mr. Nelson requested “leave to delay any required response” due to his expectation that he 

would be transferred to a new prison. Docket No. 8. Upon due consideration, the request is 

GRANTED in that the Court has taken the information into account in setting a very extended

deadline for Mr. Nelson to file his amended petition. 

The Court notes that even Mr. Nelson’s request for a delay is unnecessarily long. His 

request is six pages long, when the relevant information could have been provided in about four or 

five sentences. (The relevant information is that he needs extra time because (1) he was told he 

would be transferred in about 60 days; (2) he has been separated from his legal paperwork that he 

needs for this case; and (3) he is having difficulty accessing the law library and legal assistance.) 

Because the Court has hundreds of pending cases at any given time, it expects that litigants will 

limit the arguments and facts in their filings to arguments and facts that are necessary to the issue 

the Court must decide.

IV. CONCLUSION

The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Mr. 

Nelson must file an amended petition curing the deficiencies identified in this order no later than 

June 5, 2020. The amended petition should have the case caption and case number on the first 

page and should be clearly marked “Amended Petition.” Petitioner is cautioned that his amended 

petition must be a complete statement of his claims. See Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 

896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc) (“For claims dismissed with prejudice and without leave to 

amend, we will not require that they be repled in a subsequent amended complaint to preserve 

///

///

///

///

///

Case 3:19-cv-08057-EMC Document 9 Filed 03/16/20 Page 7 of 8
8

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

them for appeal. But for any claims voluntarily dismissed, we will consider those claims to be 

waived if not repled.”) Failure to file the amended petition by the deadline will result in the 

dismissal of the action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 16, 2020

______________________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:19-cv-08057-EMC Document 9 Filed 03/16/20 Page 8 of 8