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.

Osterhoudt v. Blades

United States District Court, D. Idaho

January 10, 2017

FRANKLIN W. OSTERHOUDT, Petitioner,
v.
RANDY BLADES, Warden, Idaho State Correctional Center, Respondent.

          MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER

          Honorable Candy W. Dale United States Magistrate Judge

         Pending 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 for adjudication.

         The 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 Cir. 2006).

         The 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.

         BACKGROUND

         The 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 decision.

         After 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.[1] 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.)

         Petitioner 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.)

         Petitioner 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.)

         Petitioner 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.)

         Petitioner 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.)

         Pursuant 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.)

         In the 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 trial.
Claim 4(c): The lead detective on Petitioner's case was dishonest in conducting search warrants and coaching witnesses.
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 ...

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.