Summerfield v. Singh

Filing 12

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 10/17/12 granting 10 Motion for deferral of briefing and for an order regarding the state court Marsden hearing transcripts. This court requests that the California Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate District forward the Marsden hearing transcripts in the case of People v. Summerfield, C063474 to the chambers of the undersigned for in camera review to determine the relevance of those transcripts, or any part thereof, to the claims raised by petitioner in these federal habeas proceedings. Counsel for respondent is directed to forward a copy of this order to the Clerk of the California Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate District.. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

RUDOLPH SUMMERFIELD,

11
12
13
14
15
16

Petitioner,

No. 2: 12-cv-1953 GEB DAD P

Respondent.

ORDER

vs.
V. SINGH,

/
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas

17

corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On July 31, 2012, respondent was ordered by the

18

court to file a response to the pending habeas petition within sixty days. On September 27, 2012,

19

only a few days before respondent’s response to the habeas petition was due, respondent filed a

20

“Request for Deferral of Briefing and for Order as to the State Court Marsden Hearing

21

Transcripts.” (Dkt. No. 10.) In that request, respondent represents that there were three in

22

camera hearings held in the underlying state court criminal proceedings with respect to

23

petitioner’s request for substitution of appointed counsel brought pursuant to the decision in

24

People v. Marsden, 2 Cal. 3d 118 (1970). Respondent claims that these hearing transcripts

25

would be relevant in addressing the claims raised by petitioner in his federal habeas petition. In

26

this regard, respondent’s counsel states that:
1

1
2
3
4
5
6

experience has shown that California courts are leery about
disclosing such matters via an ex parte decision to unseal,
particularly given lack of ongoing proceedings in the state court.
In the past, this difficulty has been obviated by the federal court
directing Respondent to ask the state court to transmit the
transcript directly to the federal court, for filing under seal – with
the federal court itself then ruling whether to unseal the transcript.
(Dkt. No. 10 at p. 2.)
Respondent’s counsel is correct that the California Court of Appeal cannot under

7

these circumstances, consistent with state law, simply unseal Marsden hearing transcripts and

8

turn them over to the Attorney General. Those transcripts may or may not contain information

9

relevant to disposition of petitioner’s claims, which do not include a claim that any Marsden

10

motion was erroneously denied in state court, presented in this federal habeas action. That,

11

however, is where this court’s agreement with counsel ends with respect to respondent’s belated

12

presentation of this issue.

13

On July 31, 2012, this court ordered respondent to file all transcripts and other

14

documents relevant to the issues presented in the pending federal habeas petition if respondent

15

elected to file an answer to the petition instead of a motion. There is nothing on the face of the

16

pending petition to suggest that a ruling on a Marsden motion was being placed at issue. Yet,

17

respondent’s counsel waited until September 27, 2012 to file the request now before the court.

18

Given that the request was filed just a few days before the response to the petition was due, it

19

appears clear that respondent was ill-prepared to comply with this court’s July 31, 2012 order by

20

filing a timely answer. If respondent’s counsel was preparing to file a timely response to the

21

petition, it would seem that counsel would have learned of the existence of Marsden hearing

22

transcripts that might possibly be relevant to the pending claims weeks ago and brought the

23

matter to this court’s attention.

24

Respondent has not filed a response to the habeas petition presumably in light of

25

this request regarding transcripts. In light of this fact, the court will reluctantly grant

26

respondent’s request to defer briefing and for an order regarding the Marsden hearing transcripts.
2

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

2

1. Respondent’s request for deferral of briefing and for an order regarding the

3

state court Marsden hearing transcripts (Dkt. No. 10) is granted.

4

2. This court requests that the California Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate

5

District forward the Marsden hearing transcripts in the case of People v. Summerfield, CO63474

6

to the chambers of the undersigned for in camera review to determine the relevance of those

7

transcripts, or any part thereof, to the claims raised by petitioner in these federal habeas

8

proceedings.

9
10

3. Counsel for respondent is directed to forward a copy of this order to the Clerk
of the California Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate District.

11

4. Upon completion of that in camera review, this court will issue a further order

12

addressing whether any portion of those transcripts is relevant to these proceedings and whether

13

counsel for respondent shall be granted access thereto. At that time the court will set a date by

14

which respondent’s answer to the petition shall be filed.

15

DATED: October 17, 2012.

16
17
18
19

DAD:dpw
summ1953.36marsdentr

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3