United States District Court, D. Idaho
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER
C. NYE, CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
Bradley Wheeler filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
challenging his state court convictions and sentences. Dkt.
1. The Court now reviews the Petition to determine whether
the claims are subject to summary dismissal pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2243 or Rule 4 of the Rules Governing §
Standard of Law
habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is available
to petitioners who show that they are held in custody under a
state court judgment and that such custody violates the
Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.
See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). The Court is required to
review a habeas corpus petition upon receipt to determine
whether it is subject to summary dismissal. See Rule
4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Summary
dismissal is appropriate where “it plainly appears from
the face of the petition and any attached exhibits that the
petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district
criminal action in the Fifth Judicial District Court in
Canyon County, Idaho, Petitioner was convicted by jury of
battery on a correctional officer and of being a persistent
violator. He received no relief in his state court direct
appeal. It appears that Petitioner has filed a state
post-conviction action in state court, but it is unclear
whether it is completed.
Review of Claims
first claim is that Deputy Regis, the victim in the criminal
case, attacked Petitioner, not the other way around. Deputy
Regis allegedly stole Petitioner's personal property at
the same time. Petitioner asserts that an outside
investigator should have been brought in to investigate.
Petitioner has not stated a federal legal basis for this
claim. Actual innocence is not a cognizable habeas corpus
claim. Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390, 404-05
(1993) (“[O]ur habeas jurisprudence makes clear that a
claim of ‘actual innocence' is not itself a
constitutional claim, but instead a gateway through which a
habeas petitioner must pass to have his otherwise barred
constitutional claim considered on the merits.”).
second claim is that he was denied camera footage of Deputy
Regis stealing his property. After Petitioner filed a motion
in court for disclosure of the camera footage, the prosecutor
told the judge it no longer existed because it had been
erased. A correctional officer told Petitioner that it was
impossible to erase the camera footage. Again, Petitioner has
not stated a federal claim with these factual allegations, or
shown Property damage and personal injuries cannot be
remedied in a federal habeas corpus matter-which is solely
about wrongful custody. See Preiser v. Rodriguez,
411 U.S. 475, 488-500 (1973).
third claim is that the state district court denied multiple
motions for mistrials in his case. Petitioner has not
provided any facts or federal legal basis for this claim.
fourth and final claim is that Petitioner told his attorney
to poll the jury, but his attorney refused to do so.
Petitioner alleges that several jurors told him while he was
testifying that he was completely innocent and not to worry.
Petitioner presumably brings this claim as a Sixth Amendment
ineffective assistance of counsel claim.
may proceed on his claims to the extent that he previously
stated a federal claim on the same set of facts in his direct
appeal and/or post-conviction case in the Idaho Supreme
Court, and his claims are otherwise brought in a procedurally
proper manner in this action (or if not, legal or equitable
excuses apply to excuse the default of any of the claims).
Therefore, the Court will order the Clerk to serve a copy of
the Petition on counsel for Respondent, who may respond
either by answer or pre-answer motion and who shall provide
relevant portions of the state court record to this Court.
Standards of Law for Habeas Corpus Action
Petitioner's status as a pro se litigant, the
Court provides the following habeas corpus standards of law
which may apply to ...