The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Edward J. Lodge U. S. District Judge
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
Pending before the Court in this habeas corpus matter is Respondent's Motion for Summary Dismissal. (Dkt. 52.) Other non-dispositive motions are also pending (Dkts. 56, 57, 59.) The Court finds that the parties have adequately stated the facts and legal arguments in their briefs and that the decisional process would not be significantly aided by oral argument. In the interest of avoiding delay, the Court will decide this matter on the written motion, briefs, and record without oral argument. D. Idaho L. Civ. R. 7.1.
For the reasons set forth below, Respondent's Motion for Summary Dismissal will be conditionally granted. Before the Court enters judgment, however, Respondent shall supplement the existing lodging of the state court record with documents from Petitioner's state court post-conviction proceeding, and the parties shall have an opportunity to address the applicability of Martinez v. Ryan, 132 S.Ct. 1309 (2012), or Maples v. Thomas, 132 S.Ct. 912 (2012), to this case.
After a jury trial in state court, Petitioner was convicted of felony stalking. (State's Lodging A-2, pp. 216-17.) The trial court applied a persistent violator enhancement and sentenced him to life in prison, with the first ten years fixed. (Id. at 218.)
On appeal, Petitioner's counsel argued that the trial court had erred in admitting evidence of Petitioner's prior bad acts under Idaho Rule of Evidence 404(b) ("I.R.E. 404(b)"). (State's Lodging B-1.) Petitioner also submitted his own pro se supplemental brief, in which he alleged primarily that the trial judge should have disqualified herself because she was biased against him. (State's Lodging B-2.) The Idaho Court of Appeals rejected the I.R.E. 404(b) argument and it did not address Petitioner's supplemental brief. (State's Lodging B-5.) Petitioner's counsel filed a petition for review in the Idaho Supreme Court, reasserting the same evidentiary claim that he had raised in the Court of Appeals, but the Idaho Supreme Court declined to review the case. (State's Lodging B-8.)
While the direct appeal was still pending, Petitioner filed an application for post-conviction relief in the state district court. (State's Lodging C-1.) The trial court then stayed the proceedings pending the completion of the direct appeal. (Id.)
Before the Idaho Supreme Court had issued its remittitur on direct appeal and while the post-conviction matter was still pending in the state district court, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in this Court. (Dkt. 2.) The case was assigned to United States Magistrate Judge Ronald E. Bush, who conducted an initial review of the Petition and ordered it to be served on Respondent. (Dkt. 7.) Because Petitioner's state court matters had not yet concluded, the Judge Bush later stayed the federal case. (Dkt. 17.) Petitioner's state post-conviction petition was then dismissed in late 2010, but Petitioner did not appeal the state district court's decision to the Idaho Supreme Court. (State's Lodging C-1.)
The stay of the federal case was lifted, and Petitioner filed an Amended Petition on July 7, 2011. (Dtk. 36.) In his Amended Petition, he claims that (1) his rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments were allegedly violated because the prosecutor withheld favorable evidence and lied about having a tape recording of Petitioner's threats to the victim;*fn1 (2) the trial court violated his Sixth Amendment right to call witnesses on his behalf and conspired with the prosecutor and appointed defense counsel; (3) he was deprived of his Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of trial counsel; and, liberally construed, (4) his sentence violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. (Dkt. 36, pp. 2-3.)
Respondent has responded to the Amended Petition by filing a Motion for Summary Dismissal, arguing that all claims must be dismissed because Petitioner did not exhaust them properly in the state courts and, because it is too late to do so, the claims are now procedurally defaulted. (Dkt. 52.) Petitioner has filed a "Motion: Response to Respondent's Motion for Summary Dismissal" (Dkt. 54), in addition to other nondispositive motions (Dkts. 57, 59.)
The case was reassigned to the undersigned District Judge because not all parties consented to a United States Magistrate Judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (Dkt. 61.)
Having been fully informed in these matters, the Court is now prepared to issue its ruling
PETITIONER'S PRELIMINARY MOTIONS
Petitioner has submitted two motions, which he has labeled (1) a "Motion: Rule 60(A)(B) Requesting Relie[f]" and (2) a "Motion - Transcripts To: J." (Dkts. 57, 59.) With respect to the second motion, the Court finds that the transcript that Petitioner apparently seeks to have the Court review is already a part of the state court record that Respondent has lodged. Because the ...