Robinson v. Tewalt
Filing
6
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER - IT IS ORDERED: The Clerk of Court will serve (via ECF) a copy of the Petition (Dkt. 1 ), along with any attachments, together with a copy of this Order, on L.LaMont Anderson, on behalf of Respondent, at Mr. Anderson's reg istered ECF address. 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 i f 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). 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
KENDRICK DEWAYNE ROBINSON,
Case No. 1:24-cv-00614-DKG
Petitioner,
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER
v.
JOSH TEWALT, Director of the Idaho
Department of Correction,
Respondent.
Petitioner Kendrick Dewayne Robinson, through counsel, has filed a Petition for
Writ of Habeas Corpus challenging his state court conviction for trafficking in
methamphetamine. See Pet., Dkt. 1. 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
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).
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER - 1
The instant Petition asserts two claims asserting violations of the Sixth
Amendment. Claim I alleges that Robinson’s trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance
in failing “to investigate and present evidence in support of the suppression motion that
would have (a) established Robinson’s standing to challenge the search of the car he was
driving, and (b) would have impeached Officer Boyd’s claim that he could smell
marijuana.” Pet. at 8.
Claim II asserts ineffective of trial counsel based on counsel’s failure “to
investigate and present evidence to show: (a) that Robinson’s brother authorized him to
drive the rental car; (b) that Robinson was speaking to a friend when he was pulled over
(to rebut the implication that he was talking to a drug connection); (c) that Robinson had
actually withdrawn money from his bank account as he claimed; and (d) that he had
casino cards, which would support that he was headed to Las Vegas to gamble.” Id. at 11.
Robinson contends that his claims were properly exhausted in state court or are
subject to an excuse for failure to properly exhaust. Id. at 10, 12.
Robinson’s constitutional claims are colorable. Therefore, the Court will order the
Clerk of Court to serve the 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.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED:
1.
The Clerk of Court will serve (via ECF) a copy of the Petition (Dkt. 1),
along with any attachments, together with a copy of this Order, on L.
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER - 2
LaMont Anderson, on behalf of Respondent, at Mr. Anderson’s registered
ECF address.
2.
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.
3.
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).
4.
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 - 3
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.
5.
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.
6.
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.
DATED: January 28, 2025
_________________________
Honorable Debora K. Grasham
United States Magistrate Judge
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER - 4
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?