McCoy v. Clifford, et al.

Filing 11

INITIAL REVIEW ORDER - Petitioners Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (Dkt. #1 ) is GRANTED. Petitioner must pay the $5.00 filing fee. Because an amended petition is required for Petitioner to proceed, all other pending motions (Dkts. #5 , #7 , and #8 ) are DENIED without prejudice. Signed by US Magistrate Judge Debora K Grasham. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (lm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

GARRETT MICHAEL MCCOY,
Case No. 1:24-cv-00432-DKG
Petitioner,
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER
v.
MATTHEW CLIFFORD;
SHAREHOLDERS; and
SUBORDINATE OFFICERS,
Respondents.

Petitioner Garrett Michael McCoy has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
challenging Petitioner’s state court conviction. See Dkt. 3. Petitioner is in the legal
custody of the Idaho Department of Correction (“IDOC”) but is physically confined in
the Ada County Jail. Id.; see also https://www.idoc.idaho.gov/content/prisons/residentclient-search/details/79829 (accessed Oct. 25, 2024).
The Court now reviews the Petition to determine whether it is subject to summary
dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2243 and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254
Cases (“Habeas Rules”). Having reviewed the record, and otherwise being fully

INITIAL REVIEW ORDER - 1

informed, the Court enters the following Order directing Petitioner to file an amended
petition if Petitioner intends to proceed.
REVIEW OF PETITION
1.

Standard of Law for Review of Petition
Federal 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. Habeas Rule 4.
2.

Discussion
In the Fourth Judicial District Court in Ada County, Idaho, Petitioner was

convicted of grand theft, along with a persistent violator sentencing enhancement.
Petitioner was sentenced to a prison term of four years fixed and ten years indeterminate.
Petitioner pursued a direct appeal as well as state postconviction remedies. Dkt. 3 at 1–5.
In the instant Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Petitioner brings claims of
ineffective assistance of counsel and of trial error with respect to allegedly false or altered
evidence. Id. at 5–8. However, Petitioner has not identified an appropriate respondent.
Petitioner names the Ada County Sheriff Matthew Clifford as a respondent, along
with unidentified “Shareholders” and “Subordinate Officers.” Dkt. 3 at 1. Under Habeas
Rule 2(a), the proper respondent in a habeas corpus action is the “officer who has
custody” of the petitioner. In the ordinary case, this officer is “the warden of the facility
where the prisoner is being held.” Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 435 (2004).

INITIAL REVIEW ORDER - 2

But here, though Petitioner is currently held in the Ada County Jail pursuant to an
agreement with the IDOC, he remains in the legal custody of the IDOC. In such a case,
the proper respondent is Josh Tewalt, the current director of the IDOC. See Ziegler v.
Washington, No. C10-5263 BHS/KLS, 2010 WL 2331030, at *1 (W.D. Wash. June 10,
2010) (unpublished) (“Because [petitioner] is in custody pursuant to a Washington state
court judgment, but is currently housed in an out-of-state prison, he should name [the]
Secretary of the Washington Department of Corrections as the respondent in his habeas
petition.”).
In any amended petition, Petitioner must name an appropriate respondent.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED:
1.

Petitioner’s Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (Dkt. 1) is
GRANTED. Petitioner must pay the $5.00 filing fee when Petitioner next
receives funds in Petitioner’s inmate trust account.

2.

Because an amended petition is required for Petitioner to proceed, all other
pending motions (Dkts. 5, 7, and 8) are DENIED without prejudice.

3.

Within 28 days after entry of this Order, Petitioner must file an amended
petition as described above. If Petitioner fails to file a timely amended
petition, or if it appears from the face of the amended petition that
Petitioner is not entitled to relief, this case may be reassigned to a district
judge for consideration of dismissal.

INITIAL REVIEW ORDER - 3

4.

The Clerk of Court will provide Petitioner with a form § 2254 petition, and
Petitioner is encouraged and expected to use this form in drafting an
amended petition.

DATED: April 14, 2022

_________________________
Honorable Debora K. Grasham
United States Magistrate Judge

INITIAL REVIEW ORDER - 4