Date of Offense
Statement
“Judge Michael T. Liburdi demonstrated a pattern of prejudgment, factual misrepresentation, and improper application of law in my federal habeas proceeding. He repeatedly referred to me as a fugitive despite the record showing I was detained on a quashed, clerk‑signed, statewide‑only warrant and had appeared at every proceeding where I received notice. He misstated the procedural posture of my case, ignored the jurisdictional defects raised in the petition, and relied on factual assertions contradicted by the documents I submitted.”
“Judge Liburdi improperly invoked abstention even though abstention did not apply to the posture of my state case. At the time of his ruling, the state proceedings were not ongoing in the manner required for Younger abstention, and the defects I raised — including the invalid warrant, unlawful bond forfeiture, and denial of access to the courts — were not issues that abstention doctrine permits a federal court to ignore.”
Judge Michael T. Liburdi demonstrated a pattern of prejudgment, factual misrepresentation, and improper application of law in my federal habeas proceeding. He repeatedly referred to me as a fugitive despite the record showing I was detained on a quashed, clerk‑signed, statewide‑only warrant and had appeared at every proceeding where I received notice. He misstated the procedural posture of my case, ignored the jurisdictional defects raised in the petition, and relied on factual assertions contradicted by the documents I submitted.”
“Judge Liburdi improperly invoked abstention even though abstention did not apply to the posture of my state case. At the time of his ruling, the state proceedings were not ongoing in the manner required for Younger abstention, and the defects I raised — including the invalid warrant, unlawful bond forfeiture, and denial of access to the courts — were not issues that abstention doctrine permits a federal court to ignore.”
“He then preemptively blocked my Ninth Circuit appeal by denying a Certificate of Appealability that I did not apply for and that is not required in my case. This action cut off appellate review before I could even file a notice of appeal.”
Finally, Judge Liburdi dismissed my habeas petition three days before the State’s response deadline expired, despite having issued an order requiring the State to respond. By dismissing the case before the deadline he set, he deprived me of the adversarial process his own order mandated and prevented the factual record from being developed.
“Taken together, Judge Liburdi’s actions reflect a failure to accurately review the record, a misapplication of abstention doctrine, premature termination of the case, and a prejudgment of my petition that denied me meaningful federal review.
