United States District Court, D. Idaho
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
J. Lodge, United States District Judge.
before the Court is a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
filed by Idaho state prisoner James Butler Ramsey
(“Petitioner”), challenging Petitioner's Ada
County conviction for robbery. (Dkt. 1.) Respondent has filed a Motion
for Summary Dismissal, arguing that the Petition is barred by
the one-year statute of limitations and that some of
Petitioner's claims are procedurally defaulted or
noncognizable. (Dkt. 13.) Petitioner did not respond to the
Motion, which is now ripe for adjudication.
Court takes judicial notice of the records from
Petitioner's state court proceedings, which have been
lodged by Respondent. (Dkt. 12.) See Fed. R. Evid.
201; Dawson v Mahoney, 451 F.3d 550, 551 n.1 (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 L. Civ. R. 7.1(d). Accordingly, the Court enters the
following Order granting the Motion and dismissing the
Petition with prejudice as untimely.
Fourth Judicial District in Ada County, Idaho, Petitioner
pleaded guilty to robbery and other crimes and was sentenced
to life in prison with twenty years fixed on the robbery
count. (State's Lodging B-4.) Petitioner filed a direct
appeal, and the Idaho Court of Appeals affirmed on April 22,
2003. (Id.) Petitioner did not file a petition for
review with the Idaho Supreme Court. (See
State's Lodging B-5.)
April 21, 2004, Petitioner, through counsel, filed a petition
for post-conviction relief in state court. (State's
Lodging C-1 at 4-6.) The state district court dismissed the
petition, and the Idaho Court of Appeals affirmed.
(Id. at 39-44; D-4.) Petitioner's petition for
review was denied, and the Idaho Supreme Court issued the
remittitur on March 28, 2007. (State's Lodging D-7; D-8.)
November 25, 2009, at the earliest,  Petitioner filed a pro se successive
post-conviction petition. (State's Lodging E-1 at 4-16.)
The trial court dismissed the successive petition, the Idaho
Court of Appeals affirmed, and Petitioner did not file a
petition for review. (Id. at 83-92; F-6; see
December 4, 2014, at the earliest, Ramsey filed a motion for
reduction of sentence under Idaho Criminal Rule 35.
(State's Lodging G-1 at 74-83.) The trial court denied
the motion. (Id. at 93-94.) The Idaho Court of
Appeals affirmed, and the Idaho Supreme Court denied review.
(State's Lodging H-4; H-6.)
filed his Petition in this Court, at the earliest, on
December 6, 2016.
Court has construed the Petition as asserting the following
Claim 1: Petitioner was denied his Sixth Amendment right to
counsel, or to the effective assistance of counsel, on direct
appeal. Petitioner also challenges the Idaho Supreme
Court's practice of not accepting pro se filings when the
filing party is represented by counsel, which appears to be a
claim that Petitioner is entitled to hybrid representation on
Claim 2: The fixed portion of Petitioner's sentence is
excessive. (This appears to be an Eighth Amendment claim.)
Claim 3: Petitioner was denied counsel during his Rule 35
Claim 4: Petitioner was deprived of his right to equal
protection when the state court “fail[ed] to follow
it's [sic] own laws.” Petitioner also alleges that
he has been deprived of his right to access the courts.
Review Order, Dkt. 5, at 2.) Petitioner has not objected to
Court previously reviewed the Petition and allowed Petitioner
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 ...