Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Uhlry v. Blades

United States District Court, D. Idaho

August 5, 2016

TRUMAN E. UHLRY, Petitioner
v.
RANDY BLADES, Respondent.

          MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER

          Honorable Candy W. Dale United States Magistrate Judge

         Pending before the Court in Petitioner Truman E. Uhlry’s habeas corpus matter are several motions filed by the parties, including a Motion for Summary Dismissal. All parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge to enter final orders in this case. (Dkt. 13.) See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 73.

         Having fully reviewed the record, including the state court record, the Court finds that the parties have adequately presented the facts and legal arguments in the briefs and record and that the decisional process would not be significantly aided by oral argument. Therefore, the Court will decide this matter on the written motions, the memoranda, and the entire record. D. Idaho L. Civ. R. 7.1(d). Accordingly, the Court enters the following Order.

         PRELIMINARY MOTIONS

         1. Petitioner’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Dkt. 19)

         Rules 6(a) and 8(c) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases provide for appointment of counsel in habeas corpus actions if needed for effective discovery or an evidentiary hearing. In addition, the Court may exercise its discretion to appoint counsel for an indigent petitioner in any case where required by the interests of justice. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(h); 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). Whether counsel should be appointed turns on a petitioner’s ability to articulate his claims in light of the complexity of the legal issues and his likelihood of success on the merits. See Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983).

         After reviewing the record, the Court concludes it is very clear Petitioner missed his statute of limitations by many years. This preliminary procedural issue is not complex, and the Court does not believe that appointment of counsel would aid in the resolution of this matter. Therefore, the Court will deny the motion.

         2. Petitioner’s Motions for Extension of Time (Dkts. 17, 20)

         Good cause appearing, Petitioner’s motions for extension of time to respond to the Motion for Summary Dismissal will be granted. Petitioner’s Traverse/Response (Dkt. 23) is deemed timely.

         RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

         Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases authorizes the Court to summarily dismiss a petition for writ of habeas corpus when “it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” The Court may also take judicial notice of relevant state court records in determining whether to dismiss a petition. Fed.R.Evid. 201(b); Dawson v Mahoney, 451 F.3d 550, 551 (9th Cir. 2006). When a petitioner’s compliance with threshold procedural requirements is at issue, a respondent may file a motion for summary dismissal, rather than an answer. White v. Lewis, 874 F.2d 599, 602 (9th Cir. 1989).

         1. Statute of Limitations Defense

         The Court will first address Respondent’s argument that Petitioner’s entire petition is subject to dismissal with prejudice for failure to meet the one-year statute of limitations imposed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”).

         A. Standard of Law for Calculating ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.