United States District Court, D. Idaho
TRUMAN E. UHLRY, Petitioner
RANDY BLADES, Respondent.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
Honorable Candy W. Dale United States Magistrate Judge
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.
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.
Petitioner’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Dkt.
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).
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.
Petitioner’s Motions for Extension of Time (Dkts. 17,
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
MOTION TO DISMISS
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.
Statute of Limitations Defense
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”).
Standard of Law for Calculating ...