United States District Court, D. Idaho
FRANKLIN W. OSTERHOUDT, Petitioner,
RANDY BLADES, Warden, Idaho State Correctional Center, Respondent.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
Honorable Candy W. Dale United States Magistrate Judge
before the Court is Petitioner Franklin W. Osterhoudt's
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (Dkt. 3.) Respondent has
filed a Motion for Summary Dismissal, arguing that (1) all of
Petitioner's claims are procedurally defaulted, (2) all
of the claims are untimely, and (3) some of Petitioner's
claims are not cognizable. (Dkt. 15.) The Motion is now ripe
Court takes judicial notice of the records from
Petitioner's state court proceedings, which have been
lodged by Respondent. (Dkt. 11.) See Fed. R. Evid.
201(b); Dawson v Mahoney, 451 F.3d 550, 551 (9th
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 the Petition with prejudice.
facts underlying Petitioner's conviction are set forth
clearly and accurately in State v. Osterhoudt, 318
P.3d 636 (Idaho Ct. App. 2013). The facts will not be
repeated here except as necessary to explain the Court's
three trials, Petitioner was convicted by a jury in the Fifth
Judicial District in Twin Falls County, Idaho, of rape,
incest, and two counts of lewd conduct with a minor under the
age of sixteen. Id. at 638. Petitioner filed a
direct appeal, alleging violations of the Idaho Rules of
Evidence and cumulative error. (State's Lodging B-1;
B-3.) The Idaho Court of Appeals affirmed, and the Idaho
Supreme Court denied review. (State's Lodging B-5, B-9.)
then filed a petition for state post-conviction relief.
(State's Lodging C-1 at 11-14.) The trial court dismissed
the petition, and Petitioner did not file an appeal.
(Id. at 21-28.)
filed a second state post-conviction petition. This petition
was not signed by Petitioner, although Petitioner did submit
documents designating an agent, who purportedly Dated:
Petitioner's behalf. (State's Lodging D-1 at 3-26.)
The trial court dismissed the petition, and Petitioner did
not appeal. (Id. at 154-62.)
returned to state district court with a third post-conviction
petition. (State's Lodging E-1 at 3-6.) The court
dismissed the petition, and Petitioner did not appeal.
(Id. at 145-52.)
then filed a fourth post-conviction petition. (State's
Lodging F-1 at 3-15.) The state district court dismissed the
petition, and-once again-Petitioner did not appeal.
(Id. at 28-35.) Before the fourth petition was
dismissed, the administrative district judge found that
Petitioner was a vexatious litigant. (State's Lodging G-1
at 2-5.) The judge later entered a prefiling order
prohibiting Petitioner from filing “any new litigation
in the courts of this state pro se without first obtaining
leave of a judge of the court where the litigation is
proposed to be filed.” (Id. at 11.)
to the prefiling order, Petitioner submitted a motion for
leave to file a fifth post-conviction petition. (Id.
at 15-16.) The trial court denied the motion. (Id.
at 58-59.) Although Petitioner attempted to appeal the denial
of the motion, the court dismissed the notice of appeal
because the denial of the motion was not an appealable order.
(Id. at 60-64.)
instant federal habeas corpus petition, Petitioner asserts
the following claims:
Claim 1: Petitioner's due process rights were violated by
the state court's denial of Petitioner's prefiling
motion for leave to file his fifth post-conviction petition.
Claim 2: Petitioner's constitutional rights were violated
when he was declared a vexatious litigant.
Claim 3: Petitioner's trial attorney denied Petitioner
his constitutional right to testify.
Claim 4(a): Law enforcement did not follow proper procedures
or conduct an adequate investigation into the crime.
Claim 4(b): A witness committed perjury at Petitioner's
Claim 4(c): The lead detective on Petitioner's case was
dishonest in conducting search warrants and coaching
Claim 4(d): The prosecution violated Petitioner's rights
by allowing the lead detective to sit at the
prosecution's table during trial.
Claim 4(e): The state court improperly allowed the lead
detective to listen to the testimony of other ...