United States District Court, D. Idaho
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
HONORABLE CANDY W. DALE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
before the Court in this habeas corpus matter is
Respondent's Motion for Partial Summary Dismissal. (Dkt.
23.) Petitioner Mitchell Walck has filed a Response and a
Supplemental Response, and Respondent has filed a Reply.
(Dkts. 39, 44, 41.) Also pending is a preliminary matter
regarding a portion of the state court record on a CD ROM
disc. (Dkts. 44, 47.) All named parties have consented to the
jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge to enter
final orders in this case. (Dkt. 14.) See 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(c) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 73. Having reviewed the
record, including the state court record, the Court enters
the following Order.
requests that the Court order Respondent to permit him to
keep a CD ROM disc containing part of the state court record
in his cell. (Dkt. 44.) Respondent asserts that, “for
security, safety, and confidentiality concerns, ”
prison officials have decided to store Petitioner's CD
ROM in the legal resource center. (Dkt. 47.) Petitioner is
required to make an appointment to review its contents,
whereupon he is given access to review the records and take
notes. (Dkt. 47-1, Aff. of Breyanna Cupp.)
has no constitutional or other enforceable right to keep his
CD ROM containing his state court criminal case record in his
cell. An essential element of an access to courts claim is
that “the access was so limited as to be
unreasonable.” Vandelft v. Moses, 31 F.3d 794,
797 (9th Cir. 1994), as amended (Oct. 5, 1994).
Generally, a prisoner's inabilities to more fully
litigate his claims are “incidental (and perfectly
constitutional) consequences of conviction and
incarceration.” Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343,
355 (1996). The Supreme Court of the United States has
cautioned the federal courts not to interfere with the
day-to-day operations of the prisons, especially those things
related to security, a task which is best left to prison
officials who have particular experience in dealing with
prisons and prisoners. See Turner v. Safley, 482
U.S. 78, 89 (1987).
Court concludes that provision of the record to Petitioner in
the manner described by prison paralegal Breyanna Cupp is
reasonable and adequate access. (See Dkt. 47-1.)
Therefore, Petitioner's request will be denied.
OF MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY DISMISSAL
pleaded guilty to second degree kidnapping, aggravated
assault on a law enforcement officer, and robbery, after
being charged in a criminal case in the First Judicial
District Court in Kootenai County, Idaho. On April 14, 2014,
Petitioner was sentenced to terms of incarceration between
ten years and life indeterminate-all to run concurrently with
his North Dakota felony sentences. Petitioner challenges his
Idaho convictions in this federal habeas corpus matter.
Standard of Law
petitioner's compliance with threshold procedural
requirements is at issue, a respondent may file a motion for
summary dismissal, rather than an answer. White v.
Lewis, 874 F.2d 599, 602 (9th Cir. 1989). Rule 4 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, lodged by the parties.
requests that the Court dismiss with prejudice the following
claims contained in the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
for the following reasons: Claims 1(e), (f), and
are procedurally defaulted, and Claim 3 fails to state a
cognizable federal habeas corpus claim.
Claims 1(e), (f), and (g): Ineffective Assistance of Trial
and Direct Appeal Counsel
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
proceed through one complete round of the state's
established appellate review process, fairly presenting all
constitutional claims at each level of appellate review to
allow a full and fair opportunity to correct alleged
constitutional errors at each level of appellate review.
Id. at 845. If the Idaho Court of Appeals decided
the appeal, then the petitioner must take the final step of
filing a petition for review of that decision by the Idaho
Supreme Court. Id. at 847. “Fair
presentation” requires a description of both the
operative facts and the legal theories upon which the federal
claim is based. Gray v. Netherland, 518 U.S. 152,
habeas petitioner has not fairly presented a constitutional
claim to the highest state court, and the state court would
now refuse to consider it under the state's procedural
rules, the claim is said to be “procedurally
defaulted.” Gray, 518 U.S. at 161-62.
Procedurally defaulted claims include: (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; or (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 (1991).
petitioner cannot proceed in federal court on his defaulted
claims without a showing of “cause and prejudice”
or a “miscarriage of justice.” Murray v.
Carrier, 477 U.S. 478, 488 (1986). A procedurally
defaulted claim will not be heard in federal court unless the
petitioner shows either that there was legitimate cause for
the default and that prejudice resulted from the default, or,
alternatively, that the petitioner is actually innocent and a
miscarriage of justice would occur if the federal claim is
not heard. Id. at 485-95.
to show “cause” for a procedural default, a
petitioner must prove that some objective factor external to
the defense impeded his or his counsel's efforts to
comply with the state procedural rule at issue. Id.
at 488. To show “prejudice, ” a petitioner must
show “not merely that the errors [in his proceeding]
constituted a possibility of prejudice, but that they worked
to his actual and substantial disadvantage, infecting ...