United States District Court, D. Idaho
GRANT W. GOSCH, Petitioner,
v.
STATE OF IDAHO, et al., Respondents.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
EDWARD
J. LODGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Pending
before the Court is a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
filed by Idaho state prisoner Grant W. Gosch. (Dkt. 3.)
Respondents have filed an Answer and Brief in Support of
Dismissal, arguing that Petitioner's claim is
procedurally defaulted and, alternatively, that the claim
fails on the merits. (Dkt. 14.) Petitioner has filed a Reply
(Dkt. 20), and the Petition is now ripe for adjudication.
The
Court takes judicial notice of the records from
Petitioner's state court proceedings, which have been
lodged by Respondents. See Fed. R. Evid. 201(b);
Dawson v Mahoney, 451 F.3d 550, 551 n.1 (9th Cir.
2006). 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 dismissing the Petition
because Petitioner's only claim is procedurally
defaulted.
BACKGROUND
In the
First Judicial District Court in Kootenai County, Idaho,
Petitioner pleaded guilty to felony domestic battery in
violation of Idaho Code § 18-918. (Pet., Dkt. 3, at 1;
State's Lodging B-4 at 1.) He received a unified sentence
of eight years in prison with three years fixed, but the
trial court retained jurisdiction and placed Petitioner on a
rider. (State's Lodging C-6.) After two review hearings,
the trial court relinquished jurisdiction and ordered
execution of the underlying sentence. (State's Lodging
B-4 at 1; C-7; C-8.)
Petitioner
did not file a direct appeal. Petitioner states that his
attorney was supposed to file an appeal, but did not, and
that his attorney told Petitioner to obtain a Rule 35 packet
from the jail himself and send it to the attorney's
office, for purposes of filing a motion for reduction of
sentence under Idaho Criminal Rule 35. (Dkt. 20 at 4.)
Petitioner was unable to obtain the packet from the Kootenai
County Jail.
Petitioner
then filed a pro se petition for state post-conviction
relief. (State's Lodging A-1 at 3-6.) The petition did
not include his current claim that, due to Kootenai
County's failure to provide documents to Petitioner, he
was unable to file a motion for reduction of sentence under
Idaho Criminal Rule 35 and, therefore, was denied his right
to access the courts. Petitioner failed to respond to the
post-conviction court's notice of intent to dismiss, and
the court dismissed the petition. (Id. at 8.)
Petitioner
appealed the dismissal of his post-conviction petition,
raising for the first time his claim regarding his inability
to file a Rule 35 motion. (State's Lodging B-1; B-3.) The
Idaho Court of Appeals declined to address this issue because
Petitioner raised the issue for the first time on
appeal.[1] (State's Lodging B-4 at 4-5.)
Petitioner did not file a petition for review with the Idaho
Supreme Court. (See State's Lodging B-5
(remittitur issued by Idaho Court of Appeals).)
In the
instant habeas Petition, Petitioner asserts a single claim:
that he was denied his right of access to the courts when
Kootenai County failed to provide him with “Rule 35
paperwork/packet while [Petitioner was] housed in County
Jail.” (Dkt. 3 at 2.) The Court previously reviewed the
Petition and allowed Petitioner to proceed on the Petition to
the extent that his claim “(1) is cognizable in a
federal habeas corpus action, (2) was timely filed in this
Court, and (3) was either properly exhausted in state court
or subject to a legal excuse for any failure to exhaust in a
proper manner.” (Dkt. 7 at 2.)
Respondents
argue that Petitioner's claim is procedurally defaulted
and that no legal excuse for the default exists. For the
reasons that follow, the Court agrees.[2]
DISCUSSION
1.
Standards of Law
The
Rules Governing § 2254 Cases (“Habeas
Rules”) authorize 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, ” as well as those records subject to
judicial notice, “that the petitioner is not entitled
to relief in the district court.” Habeas Rule 4;
see Fed. R. Evid. 201(b); Dawson, 451 F.3d
at 551 n.1.
A
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. In a 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.
Id. at 847. ...