Goldsberry v. Long

Filing 27

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 5/4/2015 ORDERING counsel for respondent to file (or lodge in paper), within 30 days, a copy of the CA Supreme Court's order dated 6/19/2013, denying petitioner's habeas petition.(Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ROBERT EARNEST GOLDSBERRY,

12

No. 2:13-cv-01358 AC

Petitioner,

13

v.

14

DAVID LONG,

15

ORDER

Respondent.

16
17

This habeas corpus action was submitted for decision with the filing of the traverse on

18

December 26, 2013. It has come to the attention of the court that the state court record lodged by

19

respondent does not include a copy of the California Supreme Court’s June 19, 2013 order

20

denying habeas relief. Instead, respondent has submitted a docket report from the California

21

Supreme Court, indicating that the petition was denied on June 19, 2013. Lodged Doc. 11. In the

22

experience of the undersigned, it is common practice in federal habeas cases for Deputies

23

Attorney General to lodge California Supreme Court docket reports in lieu of the actual orders

24

denying habeas petitions. This practice does not permit the court to perform the review required

25

by 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

26

A docket report is not an order and does not conclusively establish the contents of the

27

orders it references. A docket report summarizes the procedural history of a case. It documents

28

the fact that relief was denied, but does not establish to the court’s satisfaction the contents of the
1

1

order. The presence or absence of any stated reason for denial, no matter how briefly identified,

2

or any citation to authority, has potential consequences for review under § 2254. See Cullen v.

3

Pinholster, 131 S. Ct. 1388, 1399 (2011) (focus of 2254(d) review is “what a state court. . . did”);

4

Ylst v. Nunnemaker, 501 U.S. 797, 806 (1991) (where state court’s denial is unexplained, federal

5

court must “look through” it to last reasoned decision); Frantz v. Hazey, 533 F.3d 724, 738 (9th

6

Cir. 2008) (en banc) (where state court’s denial is explained, federal court’s analysis is limited to

7

its actual reasoning and analysis); Cone v. Bell, 556 U.S. 449, 472 (2009) (where state court

8

denial rests on procedural ground, federal court conducts de novo review of merits).

9

The undersigned is aware from experience that California Supreme Court docket sheets

10

generally do reflect the content of orders denying habeas relief, including any citations to a

11

procedural bar. However, the docket reports are not the source documents. In light of this court’s

12

duty to review what the state court actually did, the lodged state court record must include all

13

state court orders denying relief. A docket report or similar substitute is not sufficient.

14

Accordingly, counsel for respondent is HEREBY ORDERED to file (or lodge in paper),

15

within 30 days after the filing date of this order, a copy of the California Supreme Court’s order

16

dated June 19, 2013, denying petitioner’s habeas petition.

17

DATED: May 4, 2015

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2