Carpenter v. Holland

Filing 22

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 4/30/15 ORDERING counsel for respondent to file (or lodge in paper), within 30 days after the filing date of this order, a copy of the California Supreme Courts order dated February 11, 2014, denying petitioners habeas petition. (Dillon, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

STEVEN WARREN CARPENTER,

12

No. 2:14-cv-00692-JAM-AC (HC)

Petitioner,

13

v.

14

KIM HOLLAND,

15

ORDER

Respondent.

16
17

This habeas corpus action was submitted for decision on August 9, 2014.1 It has come to

18

the attention of the court that the state court record lodged by respondent does not include a copy

19

of the California Supreme Court’s February 11, 2014 order denying habeas relief. Instead,

20

respondent has submitted a docket report from the California Supreme Court, indicating that the

21

petition was denied on February 11, 2014. Lodged Doc. No. 15 at 2. In the experience of the

22

undersigned, it is common practice in federal habeas cases for Deputies Attorney General to

23

lodge California Supreme Court docket reports in lieu of the actual orders denying habeas

24

petitions. This practice does not permit the court to perform the review required by 28 U.S.C. §

25

2254.

26
27
28

1

No traverse was filed in this case. On July 10, 2014, respondent’s answer was filed and served
on petitioner. ECF No. 17. The traverse was due thirty days later on August 9, 2014. See ECF
No. 6.
1

1

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

2

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

3

the fact that relief was denied, but does not establish to the court’s satisfaction whether or not the

4

denial was without comment or citation. The presence or absence of any stated reason for denial,

5

no matter how briefly identified, or any citation to authority, has potential consequences for

6

review under § 2254. See Cullen v. Pinholster, 131 S. Ct. 1388, 1399 (2011) (focus of 2254(d)

7

review is “what a state court. . . did”); Ylst v. Nunnemaker, 501 U.S. 797, 806 (1991) (where

8

state court’s denial is unexplained, federal court must “look through” it to last reasoned decision);

9

Frantz v. Hazey, 533 F.3d 724, 738 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (where state court’s denial is

10

explained, federal court’s analysis is limited to its actual reasoning and analysis); Cone v. Bell,

11

556 U.S. 449, 472 (2009) (where state court denial rests on procedural ground, federal court

12

conducts de novo review of merits).

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

duty to review what the state court actually did, Pinholster, 131 S.Ct. at 1399, the lodged state

17

court record must include all state court orders denying relief. A docket report or similar

18

substitute is not sufficient.

19

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

20

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

21

dated February 11, 2014, denying petitioner’s habeas petition.

22

DATED: April 30, 2015

23
24
25
26
27
28
2