Mendoza

Mendoza v. Frauenheim

Bad Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaNovember 25, 20203:20-cv-04631California2,836 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 MARCOS MENDOZA, Case No. 20-cv-04631-EMC

Petitioner,

ORDER DENYING RESPONDENT’S

v. MOTION TO DISMISS

SCOTT FRAUENHEIM, Docket No. 10 Respondent.

12 13 Petitioner Marcos Mendoza has filed a habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In his petition, he asserts a number of constitutional claims (e.g., ineffective assistance of counsel, prosecutorial misconduct, erroneous evidentiary rulings). Currently pending before the Court is the state government’s motion to dismiss. The government moves to dismiss Claim 16 on the basis that it is not cognizable as it is predicated on state law, not federal law. Alternatively, the government argues that Claim 16 is subject to dismissal under the Younger abstention doctrine or that Claim 16 has not been properly exhausted in state court. Having considered the papers submitted, the Court finds that oral argument on the motion is unnecessary. The Court denies the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.