Alonzo Rayshawn Perkins v. Jeff Lynch
2:24-cv-07700
C.D. Cal.Sep 27, 2024Background
- Alonzo Rayshawn Perkins, a California state prisoner, filed a pro se federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his 2004 Los Angeles County conviction for second-degree murder, attempted murder, second-degree robbery, and possession of a firearm.
- Perkins was previously sentenced to 15 years to life and had challenged the same conviction in a prior habeas petition filed in 2006, which was denied in December 2008.
- His new petition, filed on September 4, 2024 (constructively under the prison mailbox rule), raises claims of ineffectiveness of trial counsel and due process/Brady violations.
- The petition is both potentially successive, since it challenges the same conviction as his prior federal habeas, and unexhausted, as Perkins admits he has not presented these claims in the California state courts.
- Additionally, the petition is likely untimely, having been filed more than 17 years after the expiration of the federal habeas statute of limitations under AEDPA.
- The Court issued an order to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for being successive and unexhausted, giving Perkins 28 days to respond or voluntarily dismiss.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the current petition is successive | Perkins seeks to relitigate his 2004 conviction based on new grounds | N/A (No response yet, respondent not present) | Petition appears to be successive without circuit authorization |
| Whether state court remedies were exhausted | Perkins acknowledges non-exhaustion | N/A | Petition is unexhausted and therefore subject to dismissal |
| Whether the petition is timely | Perkins filed in 2024, 17 years after the limitations period expired | N/A | Petition likely untimely under AEDPA |
| Whether court has jurisdiction absent circuit authorization | No argument made by Perkins | N/A | Court lacks jurisdiction without Ninth Circuit approval |
Key Cases Cited
- Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320 (AEDPA applies to post-1996 habeas petitions)
- Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147 (defining 'successive' petitions under AEDPA and jurisdictional requirements)
- Tyler v. Cain, 533 U.S. 656 (successive petitions must be dismissed unless narrow exceptions apply)
- O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838 (exhaustion requirement for habeas claims presented to state courts)
- Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364 (requirement that federal claims be presented to state courts before federal review)