Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-06588/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-06588-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John Sutton
Respondent
Michael Eugene Wyatt
Petitioner

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 Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MICHAEL EUGENE WYATT, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

JOHN SUTTON, 

Respondent. 

Case No. 18-cv-06588-PJH 

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION WITH 

LEAVE TO AMEND 

Petitioner, a California prisoner, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The original petition was dismissed with leave to amend 

and petitioner has filed an amended petition. 

BACKGROUND 

Petitioner was sentenced to 56 years to life in prison after being found guilty of 

first-degree murder. People v. Wyatt, No. A144872, 2018 WL 1633816, at *5 (Cal. Ct. 

App. April 5, 2018). His appeals were denied by the California Court of Appeal and 

California Supreme Court. Petition at 3. He states that he filed no state habeas petitions, 

but he has included the cover letter for a pro se petition to the California Supreme Court. 

In the California Court of Appeal petitioner contended that: (1) there was 

insufficient evidence of premeditation and deliberation for first degree murder; (2) the 

court erroneously admitted evidence of his prior conviction for voluntary manslaughter; 

(3) the court should have instructed the jury not to use the evidence of the prior homicide 

unless it made a preliminary finding that the homicide was committed with malice; (4) the 

court should have instructed the jury on self-defense and imperfect self-defense; (5) the 

prosecutor committed misconduct by saying that manslaughter was “murder with an 

Case 4:18-cv-06588-PJH Document 16 Filed 01/29/19 Page 1 of 5
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 Californi

a

excuse;” and (6) cumulative error. Wyatt, 2018 WL 1633816, at *1. It is not clear what 

claims were presented to the California Supreme Court. 

DISCUSSION 

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); Rose v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). Habeas corpus petitions must meet 

heightened pleading requirements. McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994). An 

application for a federal writ of habeas corpus filed by a prisoner who is in state custody 

pursuant to a judgment of a state court must “specify all the grounds for relief available to 

the petitioner ... [and] state the facts supporting each ground.” Rule 2(c) of the Rules 

Governing § 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. § 2254. “‘[N]otice’ pleading is not sufficient, for the 

petition is expected to state facts that point to a ‘real possibility of constitutional error.’” 

Rule 4 Advisory Committee Notes (quoting Aubut v. Maine, 431 F.2d 688, 689 (1st Cir. 

1970)). 

 LEGAL CLAIMS 

 In the original petition, petitioner alleged that: 1) there should have been a change 

of venue; 2) the reviewing court substituted itself for the jury in rejecting self-defense; and 

3) there was a Jacob error because the government must prove every element of the 

crime beyond a reasonable doubt. It appeared that claim two could relate to the 

appellate claim that the trial court should have instructed the jury on self-defense and 

imperfect self-defense. The court was not certain what a Jacob error is, and it was 

possible that claim three related to the appellate claim that there was insufficient 

evidence of premeditation and deliberation for first degree murder. It did not appear that 

the first claim regarding venue was exhausted in state court. The petition was dismissed 

Case 4:18-cv-06588-PJH Document 16 Filed 01/29/19 Page 2 of 5
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 Californi

a

with leave to amend for petitioner to present his claims in a clear manner and to present 

claims that had been exhausted. 

 In the amended petition, petitioner presents three claims of ineffective assistance 

of counsel. However, it still does not appear that these claims were exhausted by being 

presented to the California Supreme Court. Before petitioner may challenge either the 

fact or length of his confinement in a habeas petition in this court, he must present to the 

California Supreme Court any claims he wishes to raise in this court. See Rose v. Lundy, 

455 U.S. 509, 522 (1982) (holding every claim raised in federal habeas petition must be 

exhausted). The general rule is that a federal district court must dismiss a federal 

habeas petition containing any claim as to which state remedies have not been 

exhausted. Id. Petition may choose to proceed only with claims that have been properly 

exhausted. If petitioner seeks to exhaust further claims he may also file a motion for a 

stay. 

 The amended petition is dismissed with leave to amend. In a second amended 

petition, petitioner should present claims that were exhausted by being presented to the 

California Supreme Court. Petitioner should specify in the petition the claims that were 

denied by the California Supreme Court. Petitioner is again reminded that he must 

present all his claims in the second amended petition. He may not present additional 

claims and arguments in separate letters to the court. Petitioner may wish to file with the 

court the full petition that was submitted to the California Supreme Court by his appellate 

attorney and his pro se petition to that court. 

CONCLUSION 

1. The amended petition is DISMISSED with leave to amend in accordance 

with the standards set forth above. The second amended petition must be filed no later 

than March 4, 2019, and must include the caption and civil case number used in this 

order and the words AMENDED PETITION on the first page. Failure to file an amended 

petition may result in the dismissal of this action. 

2. Petitioner is reminded that all communications with the court must be 

Case 4:18-cv-06588-PJH Document 16 Filed 01/29/19 Page 3 of 5
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 Californi

a

served on respondent by mailing a true copy of the document to respondent’s counsel. 

Petitioner must keep the court informed of any change of address and must comply with 

the court’s orders in a timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this 

action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). See 

Martinez v. Johnson, 104 F.3d 769, 772 (5th Cir. 1997) (Rule 41(b) applicable in habeas 

cases). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 29, 2019 

 

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON 

United States District Judge 

 

Case 4:18-cv-06588-PJH Document 16 Filed 01/29/19 Page 4 of 5
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 Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MICHAEL EUGENE WYATT,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

JOHN SUTTON, 

Defendant. 

Case No. 18-cv-06588-PJH 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. 

District Court, Northern District of California. 

That on January 29, 2019, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by 

placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by 

depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery 

receptacle located in the Clerk's office. 

Michael Eugene Wyatt ID: AW6376

Wasco State Prison 

101 Scofield Avenue 

P.O. Box 8800 

Wasco, CA 93280 

Dated: January 29, 2019 

Susan Y. Soong 

Clerk, United States District Court 

By:________________________ 

Kelly Collins, Deputy Clerk to the 

Honorable PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON 

Case 4:18-cv-06588-PJH Document 16 Filed 01/29/19 Page 5 of 5