Scroggins v. Blades

Filing 14

SUCCESSIVE REVIEW ORDER and ORDER OF REASSIGNMENT - IT IS ORDERED:Petitioners construed motion to amend the petition (Dkt. 11 ) is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court will re-docket Docket No. 11 as an Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, which will be the operative petition in these consolidated cases.Petitioners Motion to Waive Clerks Record and Transcript Fees (Dkt. 12 ) is DENIED.The Clerk of Court will serve (via ECF) a copy of the Amended Petition (Dkt. 11 ), along with any attachments, together with a copy of this Order, on L. LaMont Anderson, on behalf of Respondent, at Mr. Andersons registered ECF address.Because it appears that Respondents State of Idaho and Canyon County District Court are not appropriate respondents in these c ase, see Habeas Rule 2(a), and because not all named parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge to conduct all proceedings in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 73, see Will iams v. King, 875 F.3d 500, 503 (9th Cir. 2017), these consolidated cases are REASSIGNED to a United States District Judge. Signed by Judge Candy W Dale. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (ac)

Case 1:16-cv-00494-BLW Document 14 Filed 12/08/22 Page 1 of 8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

MICHAEL SHAWN SCROGGINS,
Petitioner,
v.

Case No. 1:16-cv-00494-CWD
(lead case)
SUCCESSIVE REVIEW ORDER and
ORDER OF REASSIGNMENT

RANDY BLADES,
Respondent.

MICHAEL SHAWN SCROGGINS,

Case No. 1:22-cv-00394-CWD
(consolidated case)

Petitioner,
v.
STATE OF IDAHO and CANYON
COUNTY DISTRICT COURT,
Respondents.

On November 16, 2022, the Court gave Petitioner Michael Shawn Scroggins an
opportunity to file a combined amended petition governing these two consolidated habeas
corpus cases. See Dkt. 10. Petitioner was informed that, if he did not file a timely
consolidated petition, the Court would construe the petition filed in Case No. 1:22-cv000494 as the operative amended petition in these cases. Petitioner has not done so.
Accordingly, the Court will grant Petitioner’s construed motion to amend and deem that
motion to include the operative amended petition.

SUCCESSIVE REVIEW ORDER and ORDER OF REASSIGNMENT - 1

Case 1:16-cv-00494-BLW Document 14 Filed 12/08/22 Page 2 of 8

REVIEW OF PETITION
The Court is required to review every habeas corpus petition upon receipt to
determine whether it should be served upon the respondent, amended, or dismissed. See
28 U.S.C. § 2243. If “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 petition must
be summarily dismissed. Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases (“Habeas
Rules”).
1.

Background
In 1984, Petitioner was convicted in the Third Judicial District Court in Canyon

County, Idaho, of first-degree murder and attempted rape. Petitioner’s convictions were
affirmed. Petitioner initially received the death penalty, but that sentence was overturned
on appeal, and Petitioner was resentenced to fixed life imprisonment. See Init. Rev.
Order, Dkt. 7, at 1.
In these consolidated habeas cases, Petitioner claims that his sentence is excessive.
He appears to assert that, rather than “fixed life,” an indeterminate life sentence is the
maximum permissible punishment for his crimes under Idaho law. See Dkt. 11 at 3–4.
2.

Discussion
Federal habeas corpus relief is available to prisoners who are held in custody

under a state court judgment that violates the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United
States. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). Habeas relief is not available for violations of state law,
such as claims of error during state post-conviction proceedings. Lewis v. Jeffers, 497
U.S. 764, 780 (1990); Franzen v. Brinkman, 877 F.2d 26, 26 (9th Cir. 1989) (per curiam).

SUCCESSIVE REVIEW ORDER and ORDER OF REASSIGNMENT - 2

Case 1:16-cv-00494-BLW Document 14 Filed 12/08/22 Page 3 of 8

Habeas corpus law requires that a petitioner “exhaust” his state court remedies
before pursuing a claim in a federal habeas petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b). To properly
exhaust a claim, a habeas petitioner must fairly present it as a federal claim to the highest
state court for review in the manner prescribed by state law. See O’Sullivan v. Boerckel,
526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999).
If Petitioner did not properly exhaust his claim in the Idaho Supreme Court before
filing his federal Petition, he may face procedural challenges from Respondent. The
Court does not have the full record before it to determine whether Petitioner has properly
exhausted his claim. The Court will order the Clerk of Court to serve the Amended
Petition upon Respondent, who will be permitted to file an answer or a pre-answer
motion for summary dismissal and will be ordered to provide a copy of relevant portions
of the state court record to this Court.
PETITIONER’S MOTION TO WAIVE CLERK’S RECORD
AND TRANSCRIPT FEES IN IDAHO STATE COURT
Petitioner asks the Court to “waive” the clerk’s record and transcript fees in his
state court appeal. Dkt. 12. Petitioner states that the state court conditionally dismissed
the appeal and appears to seek an order from this Court requiring the Idaho Supreme
Court to waive Petitioner’s state court fees and accept the appeal.
The Court construes Petitioner’s Motion as a request for writ of mandamus.
Because the Court lacks jurisdiction to issue such a writ to a state court, the Court will
deny the Motion. See Demos v. U.S. Dist. Court, E. Dist. of Wash., 925 F.2d 1160, 1161

SUCCESSIVE REVIEW ORDER and ORDER OF REASSIGNMENT - 3

Case 1:16-cv-00494-BLW Document 14 Filed 12/08/22 Page 4 of 8

(9th Cir. 1991). Any request that the Idaho Supreme Court reconsider its dismissal of
Petitioner’s state court appeal must be raised in that court.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED:
1.

Petitioner’s construed motion to amend the petition (Dkt. 11) is
GRANTED. The Clerk of Court will re-docket Docket No. 11 as an
“Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus,” which will be the operative
petition in these consolidated cases.

2.

Petitioner’s Motion to Waive Clerk’s Record and Transcript Fees (Dkt. 12)
is DENIED.

3.

The Clerk of Court will serve (via ECF) a copy of the Amended Petition
(Dkt. 11), along with any attachments, together with a copy of this Order,
on L. LaMont Anderson, on behalf of Respondent, at Mr. Anderson’s
registered ECF address.

4.

Within 120 days after service of the Petition, Respondent may file either of
the following: (1) a motion for summary dismissal or partial summary
dismissal on procedural grounds (which may be followed by an answer on
the merits if the motion is unsuccessful); or (2) an answer on the merits that
also includes a brief summary (between one paragraph and several pages)
of any procedural defenses for any claims (which may be argued in the
alternative). The Court may consider the merits of claims that may be

SUCCESSIVE REVIEW ORDER and ORDER OF REASSIGNMENT - 4

Case 1:16-cv-00494-BLW Document 14 Filed 12/08/22 Page 5 of 8

subject to a procedural bar if the merits analysis is more straightforward
than a complicated procedural analysis.
5.

Respondent must file with the responsive pleading or motion, or within a
reasonable time thereafter, a copy of all portions of the state court record
previously transcribed that are relevant to a determination of the issues
presented. Any presentence investigation reports or evaluations—which
must be provided to the Court if the petition contains any sentencing
claims—must be filed under seal. The lodging of the remainder of the state
court record, to the extent that it is lodged in paper format, is exempt from
the redaction requirements, as provided in District of Idaho Local Civil
Rule 5.5(c).

6.

If the response to the habeas petition is an answer, Petitioner must file a
reply (formerly called a traverse), containing a brief rebutting Respondent’s
answer and brief, which must be filed and served within 28 days after
service of the answer and brief. Respondent has the option of filing a surreply within 14 days after service of the reply. At that point, the case will
be deemed ready for a final decision.

7.

If the response to the habeas petition is a motion, Petitioner’s response must
be filed and served within 28 days after service of the motion, and
Respondent’s reply, if any, must be filed and served within 14 days
thereafter.

SUCCESSIVE REVIEW ORDER and ORDER OF REASSIGNMENT - 5

Case 1:16-cv-00494-BLW Document 14 Filed 12/08/22 Page 6 of 8

8.

In the response to the habeas petition, whether a pre-answer motion or an
answer and brief, Respondent must include citations to all portions of the
state court record that support Respondent’s assertions. Although
Respondent may include citations to a state appellate court decision that
describes events that took place in a lower court, Respondent must also
include citations to the underlying lower court record.

9.

No party may file supplemental responses, replies, affidavits, or other
documents not expressly authorized by the Local Rules or by this Order
without first obtaining leave of Court.

10.

No discovery may be undertaken in this matter unless a party obtains prior
leave of Court, pursuant to Rule 6 of the Habeas Rules.

11.

The parties may, but need not, file the following in this matter: (1) notices
of non-objections to motions to which they do not object; (2) responses to
motions for appointment of counsel; (3) responses to motions that are
meritless, frivolous, or filed in contravention of this Order; or (4) notices of
intent not to file a reply. The Court will notify the parties if additional
briefing is required on any issue.

12.

Each party must ensure that all documents filed with the Court are
simultaneously served via the ECF system or by first-class mail upon the
opposing party (through counsel if the party has counsel), pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5. Each party must sign and attach a proper
mailing certificate to each document filed with the court, showing the

SUCCESSIVE REVIEW ORDER and ORDER OF REASSIGNMENT - 6

Case 1:16-cv-00494-BLW Document 14 Filed 12/08/22 Page 7 of 8

manner of service, date of service, address of service, and name of the
person upon whom service was made, or as specified by the applicable ECF
rules. The Court will not consider ex parte requests unless a motion may be
heard ex parte according to the rules and the motion is clearly identified as
requesting an ex parte order, pursuant to Local Rule 7.2. (“Ex parte” means
that a party has provided a document to the court, but that the party did not
provide a copy of the document to the other party to the litigation.)
13.

All Court filings requesting relief or requesting that the Court make a ruling
or take an action of any kind must be in the form of a pleading or motion,
with an appropriate caption designating the name of the pleading or motion,
served on all parties to the litigation, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 7, 10 and 11, and Local Rules 5.2 and 7.1. The Court will not
consider requests made in the form of letters.

14.

Petitioner must at all times keep the Court and Respondent advised of any
change in address.

15.

If Petitioner’s custodian changes at any point during this litigation,
Petitioner must file a Notice of Substitution of Respondent, within 28 days
of such change, identifying the person who is substituted as Respondent.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d); Habeas Rule 2(a).

16.

Because it appears that Respondents State of Idaho and Canyon County
District Court are not appropriate respondents in these case, see Habeas
Rule 2(a), and because not all named parties have consented to the

SUCCESSIVE REVIEW ORDER and ORDER OF REASSIGNMENT - 7

Case 1:16-cv-00494-BLW Document 14 Filed 12/08/22 Page 8 of 8

jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge to conduct all proceedings
in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
73, see Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500, 503 (9th Cir. 2017), these
consolidated cases are REASSIGNED to a United States District Judge.

DATED: December 8, 2022

_________________________
Honorable Candy W. Dale
U.S. Magistrate Judge

SUCCESSIVE REVIEW ORDER and ORDER OF REASSIGNMENT - 8