Goullette v. Valley
Filing
7
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER - IT IS ORDERED: 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 prison trust account.Petitioner's request for appointment of counsel (contained in the Petition) is DENIED without prejudice. The Clerk of Court will serve (via ECF) a copy of the Petition (Dkt. #3 ), 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. 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 (ac)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
PETER FRANKLIN GOULLETTE,
Case No. 1:24-cv-00585-DKG
Petitioner,
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER
v.
RANDY VALLEY,
Respondent.
Petitioner Peter Franklin Goullette has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
challenging his state court convictions. See Pet., Dkt. 3. 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. 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”).
REVIEW OF PETITION
1.
Background
In the First Judicial District Court in Bonner County, Idaho, Petitioner entered a
no-contest plea to reckless driving and vehicular manslaughter. He unsuccessfully
pursued an appeal and state post-conviction relief.
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER - 1
The Court construes the instant Petition as alleging the following claims.1 In
Claim 1, Petitioner appears to assert a due process violation on the basis that he is
actually innocent. Pet. at 6 (“Do not meet felony Guidline [sic]. No gross negligence.”)
(emphasis in original).
Claim 2 asserts that the trial judge should have (a) inquired into whether there was
a factual basis for Petitioner’s plea and (b) asked Petitioner if he wanted to change his
plea. The Court construes these claims as due process claims. Though Claim 2 alleges in
passing that the prosecutor delayed in disclosing an expert report, the Petition does not
appear to assert an independent claim based on this delay. Id. at 7.
In Claim 3, Petitioner appears to assert another due process claim. He alleges that
the trial judge did not adequately review the expert report, which purportedly established
Petitioner’s innocence. Id. at 8.
Finally, Claim 4 alleges that Petitioner’s no-contest plea was not knowing,
intelligent, and voluntary, in violation of due process. Id. at 9.
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).
1
If the Court’s construction of any claim is incorrect, Petitioner must inform the Court and Respondent of
all corrections within 28 days after entry of this Order.
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER - 2
A petitioner must “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, in this case, Petitioner did not properly exhaust his claims 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 claims. The Court will order the Clerk of Court to
serve the Petition upon Respondent, who will be permitted to file an answer or a preanswer motion for summary dismissal and will be ordered to provide a copy of relevant
portions of the state court record to this Court.
Accordingly, Petitioner may proceed on the Petition to the extent that the claims
(1) are cognizable—meaning they actually can be heard—in a federal habeas corpus
action, (2) were timely filed in this Court, and (3) were either properly exhausted in state
court or are subject to a legal excuse for any failure to exhaust in a proper manner. At this
time, the Court expresses no opinion as to whether any of these issues applies to any of
Petitioner’s claims.
REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
Petitioner has requested appointment of counsel. See Pet. at 10. There is no
constitutional right to counsel in a habeas corpus action. Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S.
722, 755 (1991). A habeas petitioner has a right to counsel, as provided by rule, if an
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER - 3
evidentiary hearing is required in the case. See Habeas Rule 8(c). In addition, the Court
may exercise its discretion to appoint counsel for an indigent petitioner in any case where
required by the interests of justice. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(h); 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B).
Whether counsel should be appointed turns on the petitioner’s ability to articulate the
claims in light of the complexity of the legal issues and the petitioner’s likelihood of
success on the merits. See Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983) (per
curiam).
At this point, the Court concludes that, based on the evidence currently in the
record (Dkt. 3), it is unlikely that Petitioner will be able to meet the strict standards of 28
U.S.C. § 2254(d) for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. Therefore, at this time the Court
will deny the request for appointment of counsel. The Court will notify the parties if it
determines, at a later date, that appointment of counsel may be appropriate.
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 prison trust account.
2.
Petitioner’s request for appointment of counsel (contained in the Petition) is
DENIED without prejudice.
3.
The Clerk of Court will serve (via ECF) a copy of the Petition (Dkt. 3),
along with any attachments, together with a copy of this Order, on L.
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER - 4
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
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
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER - 5
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.
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.
If any of Petitioner’s claims is currently under consideration in state court
proceedings, any party may file a motion to stay this case pending the
outcome of those proceedings. See Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 277–78
(2005); Mena v. Long, 813 F.3d 907, 908 (9th Cir. 2016).
10.
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.
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER - 6
11.
No discovery may be undertaken in this matter unless a party obtains prior
leave of Court, pursuant to Rule 6 of the Habeas Rules.
12.
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.
13.
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
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.)
14.
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,
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER - 7
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.
15.
Petitioner must at all times keep the Court and Respondent advised of any
change in address.
16.
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).
DATED: January 28, 2025
_________________________
Honorable Debora K. Grasham
United States Magistrate Judge
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER - 8
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?