United States District Court, D. Idaho
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
C. Nye- U.S. District Court Judge
before the Court in this federal habeas corpus matter is
Respondent's Motion for Partial Summary Dismissal,
seeking dismissal of Claims One(A), One(B), and Four in the
Amended Petition. Dkt. 13, 6. The motion is fully briefed and
ripe for adjudication. Having reviewed the briefing and the
state court record, the Court enters the following Order.
OF PRELIMINARY MOTIONS
before the Court are Petitioner's and Respondent's
requests for extensions of time regarding briefing of the
pending summary dismissal issues. Dkt. 11, 15. Good cause
appearing, both motions will be GRANTED.
state criminal action in the Third Judicial District Court in
Canyon County, Idaho, Petitioner was convicted by jury of
aiding and abetting first degree murder, aiding and abetting
aggravated assault, aiding and abetting unlawful use of a
firearm, and infliction of great bodily harm. Petitioner was
accused of being the driver in a gang- related drive-by
shooting perpetrated by a shooter in Petitioner's car
firing into a rival gang member's house and killing an
occupant who stood in the kitchen.
received a prison sentence of 20 fixed years, with life
indeterminate. Judgment was entered on January 3, 2011.
Petitioner filed a direct appeal and a post-conviction action
in state court. This federal habeas corpus case was stayed
for several months to permit Petitioner to exhaust his state
court remedies. Dkt. 4. Petitioner obtained no relief from
his state court actions, and this case was re-opened on May
22, 2017. Dkt. 7.
OF LAW FOR REVIEW OF SUMMARY DISMISSAL MOTIONS
of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases authorizes 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 that the petitioner is not entitled
to relief in the district court.” The Court takes
judicial notice of the records from Petitioner's state
court proceedings, which have been lodged by the parties.
See Fed. R. Evid. 201(b); Dawson v.
Mahoney, 451 F.3d 550, 551 (9th Cir. 2006).
habeas petitioner must exhaust his remedies in the state
court system 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 his federal claims in a
petition seeking review before that court. Id. at
847. “Fair presentation” requires a petitioner to
describe both the operative facts and the legal theories upon
which the federal claim is based. Gray v.
Netherland, 518 U.S. 152, 162-63 (1996).
mere similarity between a federal claim and a state law
claim, without more, does not satisfy the requirement of fair
presentation. See Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364,
365-66 (1995) (per curiam). General references in state court
to “broad constitutional principles, such as due
process, equal protection, [or] the right to a fair trial,
” are likewise insufficient. See Hiivala v.
Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1106 (9th Cir. 1999). The law is
clear that, for proper exhaustion, a petitioner must bring
his federal claim before the state court by
“explicitly” citing the federal legal basis for
his claim. Lyons v. Crawford, 232 F.3d 666, 669 (9th
Cir. 2000), as amended, 247 F.3d 904 (9th Cir.
habeas petitioner has not fairly presented a constitutional
claim to the highest state court, and it is clear that the
state court would now refuse to consider it because of the
state's procedural rules, the claim is said to be
procedurally defaulted. Gray, 518 U.S. at 161-62.
Procedurally defaulted claims include those within the
following circumstances: (1) when a petitioner has completely
failed to raise a claim before the Idaho courts; (2) when a
petitioner has raised a claim, but has failed to fully and
fairly present it as a federal claim to the Idaho
courts; and (3) when the Idaho courts have rejected a claim
on an adequate and independent state procedural ground.
Id.; Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U.S. 27, 32
(2004); Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 750
OF REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL
Discussion of Claims ...