Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00545/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00545-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Xavier Kerestesy
Petitioner
State of California
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 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

XAVIER KERESTESY, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 

Respondent. 

No. 2:15-cv-0545 MCE AC P 

ORDER 

 Briefing in this habeas corpus action is still proceeding. However, it has come to the 

attention of the undersigned that the state court record lodged by respondent does not include a 

copy of the California Supreme Court’s November 25, 2014 order denying petitioner habeas 

relief. Instead, respondent has submitted a docket report from the California Supreme Court, 

indicating that the petition was denied on that date. See ECF No. 12 at 131. Respondent requests 

that the court take judicial notice of the docket report as evidence that the California Supreme 

Court summarily denied relief in this case on the given date. See id. at 2 n.1. Respondent states 

that it is the normal practice of the California Supreme Court to not routinely serve habeas denial 

orders on the California Attorney General in cases in which respondent has not appeared, and “to 

not send copies of the such (sic) orders to the Attorney General later, despite any request.” Id. 

//// 

Case 2:15-cv-00545-MCE-AC Document 18 Filed 06/30/15 Page 1 of 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 

2

 The undersigned appreciates that the Attorney General’s Office is not served with orders 

in cases in which it has not appeared, such as state habeas corpus proceedings in which no 

informal briefing has been ordered. However, counsel for respondent is not without means to 

obtain access to the underlying orders, which are contained in court files that are open to public 

inspection. If the fact of the denial was what mattered in this court, judicial notice based on the 

docket entry would be perfectly appropriate. However, this court’s review under 28 U.S.C. § 

2254(d) must proceed on the basis of the contents of the denial order itself, not on the fact of its 

existence. In this context, judicial notice of the docket entry cannot substitute for submission and 

review of the actual order at issue. 

The undersigned is aware from experience that California Supreme Court docket sheets 

generally do reflect the content of orders denying habeas relief, including any citations to a 

procedural bar. But a docket entry is not an order, and it does not conclusively establish the 

contents of the orders it references. A docket report summarizes the procedural history of a case. 

It documents the fact that relief was denied, but does not establish to the court’s satisfaction the 

contents of the order denying relief. The presence or absence of any stated reason for denial, no 

matter how briefly identified, or any citation to authority, has potential consequences for review 

under § 2254. See Cullen v. Pinholster, 131 S. Ct. 1388, 1399 (2011) (focus of 2254(d) review is 

“what a state court. . . did”); Ylst v. Nunnemaker, 501 U.S. 797, 806 (1991) (where state court’s 

denial is unexplained, federal court must “look through” it to last reasoned decision); Frantz v. 

Hazey, 533 F.3d 724, 738 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (where state court’s denial is explained, 

federal court’s analysis is limited to its actual reasoning and analysis); Cone v. Bell, 556 U.S. 

449, 472 (2009) (where state court denial rests on procedural ground, federal court conducts de 

novo review of merits). In light of this court’s duty to review what the state court actually did, 

the lodged state court record must include all state court orders denying relief. A docket report or 

similar substitute is not sufficient. 

//// 

//// 

//// 

Case 2:15-cv-00545-MCE-AC Document 18 Filed 06/30/15 Page 2 of 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 

3

Accordingly, counsel for respondent is HEREBY ORDERED to file (or lodge in paper), 

within 30 days after the filing date of this order, a copy of the California Supreme Court’s order 

dated November 25, 2014, denying petitioner’s habeas petition. 

DATED: June 29, 2015 

Case 2:15-cv-00545-MCE-AC Document 18 Filed 06/30/15 Page 3 of 3