Brooks

Brooks v. Lozano

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaMarch 22, 20223:20-cv-01711California1,006 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JERMAINE DARNELL BROOKS, Case No. 20-cv-01711-VC (PR)

Petitioner, ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR

DISCOVERY AND FOR

v. EVIDENTIARY HEARING; DENYING

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS

JARED D. LOZANO, CORPUS; DENYING CERTIFICATE

OR APPEALABILITY

Respondent. Re: Dkt. No.

Jermaine Darnell Brooks filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Brooks did not challenge his conviction, but asserted constitutional challenges to his sentence of life without the possibility of parole (“LWOP”). On December 10, 2021, the court issued an order denying two claims but did not rule on Brooks’ equal protection claim pertaining to California Criminal Code § 3051. The court requested further briefing on: (1) Brooks’ argument that he is “actually innocent” of his sentence; (2) Brooks’ argument that his equal protection claim is an as-applied challenge to § 3051; and (3) Brooks’ motions for discovery and an evidentiary hearing. On January 4, 2022, the respondent filed his supplemental brief. Brooks has not filed a supplemental traverse. In its…

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.