United States District Court, D. Idaho
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
J. Lodge United States District Judge.
habeas corpus action has been reopened after remand from the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Currently pending before the
Court is Petitioner Ronald Lee Macik's Petition for Writ
of Habeas Corpus. (Dkt. 3.) Respondent has filed a Motion for
Summary Dismissal, arguing that Petitioner's claims are
barred by the one-year statute of limitations and are
procedurally defaulted. (Dkt. 29.) The Motion is now ripe for
adjudication. Several other motions are also pending. (Dkt.
28, 33, 34, 38, & 40.)
Court takes judicial notice of the records from
Petitioner's state court proceedings, which have been
lodged by Respondent. (Dkt. 27.) See Fed. R. Evid.
201(b); Dawson v Mahoney, 451 F.3d 550, 551 (9th
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 Loc. Civ. R. 7.1(d). Accordingly, the Court enters the
following Order granting the Motion and dismissing this case
facts of the case underlying Petitioner's conviction are
set forth clearly and accurately in State v. Powers,
537 P.2d 1369 (Idaho 1975), the decision on appeal from the
conviction of one of Petitioner's co-defendants. (See
also State's Lodging F-11 at 2 (quoting the
Powers decision).) The facts will not be repeated
here except as necessary to explain the Court's decision.
1972, Petitioner pleaded guilty to first-degree murder and
was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of
parole. (State's Lodging A-1 at 10-12.) There is no
record of a direct appeal.
1994, Petitioner filed his first federal petition for writ of
habeas corpus. See Macik v. Brennan, Case No.
1:94-cv-00503-BLW. That petition was dismissed, and
Petitioner did not appeal.
filed a second federal habeas petition in 2008, which was
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See Macik v.
Hardison, Case No. 1:08-cv-00360-EJL. Petitioner did not
appeal. Over four-and-a-half years later, Petitioner filed a
motion to reopen, which was denied. Again, Petitioner did not
did not take any action in state court to challenge his
conviction until nearly forty years after his conviction. On
March 14, 2011, Petitioner sent a letter to the state trial
court, which construed the letter as a motion to withdraw
Petitioner's guilty plea. (State's Lodging A-1 at
13-18.) The state district court denied the motion for lack
of jurisdiction, because the motion was filed long after the
judgment of conviction became final. (Id. at 31-32.)
The Idaho Court of Appeals affirmed, and the Idaho Supreme
Court denied review. (State's Lodging B-4, B-6.)
filed his first petition for state post-conviction relief in
July 2012. (State's Lodging C-1 at 3-9.) The state
district court dismissed the petition as untimely pursuant to
Idaho Code § 19-4902. (Id. at 29-32.) The Idaho
Court of Appeals reversed and remanded because the trial
court had not provided Petitioner with the required
twenty-day period before dismissing the petition.
(State's Lodging D-4.) Following the remand, the trial
court again dismissed the petition because it was untimely.
(State's Lodging G-1 at 41-51, 77-88.) The Idaho Court of
Appeals affirmed, and the Idaho Supreme Court denied review.
(State's Lodging H-3, H-6.)
point, Petitioner had litigated a second petition for
post-conviction relief.The state district court dismissed the
petition pursuant to Idaho's successive petitions bar,
found in Idaho Code § 19-4908, because Petitioner had
not shown a sufficient reason why the claims could not have
been included in the first post-conviction petition.
(State's Lodging E-1 at 251-56.)
filed the instant Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, at the
earliest, on June 17, 2015. The Court has construed the
Petition as asserting the following claims:
Claim 1(a): Petitioner was deprived of his right to be free
from compelled self-incrimination.
Claim 1(b): Petitioner's guilty plea was involuntary.
Claim 1(c): The prosecutor withheld exculpatory evidence.
Claim 2: Petitioner was deprived of his Sixth Amendment right
to the effective assistance of trial counsel.
Claim 3(b): There was insufficient evidence to support the
Claim 3(b): Petitioner is actually innocent.
Claim 4: Petitioner was deprived of his right to due process
and equal protection because he was denied access to
documents in his criminal case.
(Dkt. 3, 25.)
was allowed to proceed on his claims to the extent those
claims “(1) are cognizable in a federal habeas corpus
action, (2) were timely filed in this Court, and (3) were
either properly exhausted in state court or subject to a
legal excuse for any failure to exhaust in a proper
manner.” (Dkt. 25 at 2-3.)