Chaffer v. Prosper

1 Citing brief

  1. GOMEZ v. S.C. (FELKER)

    Real Party in Interest, Tom Felker, Supplemental Letter Brief

    Filed December 10, 2010

    The effect of this increase in prison population on a superior court’s ability to efficiently screen habeaspetitionsis compoundedbythe lack of limits on petitioners who continually abuse the habeasprocess,the absenceof a clear timeliness rule for non-capital habeas petitioners, and the expanding scope of habeas review to include issues not implicating an inmate’s fundamentalrights or liberty. (See In re Bittaker (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 1004, 1010-1011 [holding that vexatiouslitigant statute does not apply to habeaspetitioners]; Chaffer v. Prosper (9th Cir. 2010) 592 F.3d 1046, 1048, fn. 1 [noting that this Court declined to answera certified question to clarify the timeliness rule for habeaspetitioners]; Duvall, supra, 9 Cal.4th at p. 470 [noting “the modern expansion of the availability of relief on habeas corpus.”]; In re Estevez (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1445, 1460-1461, fn. 6 [unlike federal habeas practice, state habeas petitions may be directed “simply as to the circumstances under the whichthe prisoneris held.”