United States District Court, D. Idaho
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
Ronald E. Bush United States Magistrate Judge.
before the Court is Petitioner Brian Kenneth Taylor’s
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (Dkt. 1.) Respondent has
filed a Motion for Summary Dismissal, arguing that the only
claim in the Petition is procedurally defaulted. (Dkt. 12.)
The Motion is now ripe for adjudication. (Dkt. 14, 16.)
parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a United States
Magistrate Judge to conduct all proceedings in this case in
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (Dkt. 10.) Having
carefully 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 oral argument is unnecessary. See D.
Idaho L. Civ. R. 7.1(d). Accordingly, the Court enters the
following Order granting Respondent’s Motion and
dismissing this case with prejudice.
facts underlying Petitioner’s conviction are set forth
clearly and accurately in State v. Taylor, Docket
No. 41888, Op. 399 (Idaho Ct. App. March 9, 2015)
(unpublished), which is contained in the record at
State’s Lodging B-4. The facts will not be repeated
here except as necessary to explain the Court’s
entered a conditional guilty plea in the Second Judicial
District in Latah County, Idaho, to four counts of sexual
abuse of child under the age of sixteen, four counts of lewd
conduct with a child under the age of sixteen, and one count
of sexual exploitation of a child, in violation of Idaho Code
§§ 18-1506(1), 18-1508, and 18-1507(2)(b).
(State’s Lodging B-4 at 1.) Petitioner received a
unified sentence of life imprisonment with 25 years fixed.
(Id. at 7.)
appealed, arguing, in relevant part, that the trial court
should have granted his motion to suppress camera memory
cards that were found in Petitioner’s home. Petitioner
claimed that, during the search, the police coerced him into
providing statements disclosing the location of the memory
cards. (State’s Lodging B-2.) The Idaho Court of
Appeals affirmed. (State’s Lodging B-4.) Petitioner did
not file a petition for review with the Idaho Supreme Court,
and the Idaho Court of Appeals issued its remittitur.
(State’s Lodging B-5.)
instant federal habeas corpus petition, Petitioner asserts a
single claim-that the trial court should have granted his
motion to suppress evidence because Petitioner’s
statements as to where to find the memory cards were
involuntary in violation of the Fifth Amendment. (Dkt. 1 at
Motion for Summary Dismissal, Respondent argues that
Petitioner’s claim is procedurally defaulted.
Standards of Law
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). Where appropriate, a respondent may file a motion
for summary dismissal, rather than an answer. White v.
Lewis, 874 F.2d 599, 602 (9th Cir. 1989).
habeas petitioner must exhaust his or her remedies in the
state courts before a federal court can grant relief on
constitutional claims. O’Sullivan v. Boerckel,
526 U.S. 838, 842 (1999). To do so, the petitioner must
invoke one complete round of the state’s established
appellate review process, fairly presenting all
constitutional claims to the state courts so that they have a
full and fair opportunity to correct alleged constitutional
errors at each level of appellate review. Id. at
845. “Fair presentation” requires a petitioner to
describe both the operative facts and the legal theories upon
which the federal claim is based. Gray v.
Netherland, 518 U.S. 152, 162-63 (1996).
state that has the possibility of discretionary review in the
highest appellate court, like Idaho, the petitioner must have
presented all of his federal claims at least in a petition
seeking review before that court. O’Sullivan,
526 U.S. at 847. In Idaho, all appeals from district courts
initially go to the Idaho Supreme Court. That court then
assigns certain cases to the Idaho Court of Appeals, which is
required to decide all such assigned cases. See
Idaho App. R. 108. Generally, cases that are assigned to the
court of appeals are those “involv[ing] existing legal
principles” as opposed to cases of first impression.
Id. Once the Idaho Court of Appeals decides an
assigned case, then the losing party may file a petition for
review with the Idaho Supreme Court, which ...