Knutson v. State of Iowa

Filing 3

INITIAL REVIEW ORDER denying 1 PRO SE Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Scott Edward Knutson; denying as moot 2 PRO SE MOTION to Appoint Counsel filed by Scott Edward Knutson. A certificate of appealability is denied. (See order text) Signed by Chief Judge Linda R Reade on 5/24/10. (Copy w/NEF to Plf) (ksy)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA CEDAR RAPIDS DIVISION

SCOTT EDWARD KNUTSON, Petitioner, vs. STATE OF IOWA,1 Respondent. INITIAL REVIEW ORDER No. C10-0023-LRR

____________________________ This matter is before the court on the petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus. The petitioner filed such application on May 11, 2010. The petitioner paid the statutory filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914. Also before the court is the petitioner's application for appointment of counsel. Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides that the court shall conduct an initial review of the application for habeas corpus and summarily dismiss it, order a response, or "take such action as the judge deems appropriate." See Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. The court may summarily dismiss an application without ordering a response if it plainly appears from the face of the application and its exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief. See id.; 28 U.S.C. § 2243; Small v. Endicott,

The court notes that the petitioner brings this action against the "State of Iowa." 28 U.S.C. § 2243 makes clear that the proper respondent in a federal habeas corpus action is "the person having custody of the person detained." See also 28 U.S.C. § 2242 (stating application shall allege the name of the person who has custody over him); Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Ct. of Ky., 410 U.S. 484, 494-95, 93 S. Ct. 1123, 35 L. Ed. 2d 443 (1973) ("The writ of habeas corpus does not act upon the prisoner who seeks relief, but upon the person who holds him in what is alleged to be unlawful custody."). Thus, the petitioner improperly named the "State of Iowa" as the respondent.

1

998 F.2d 411, 414 (7th Cir. 1993). For the reasons set forth below, summary dismissal is appropriate in this case. Concerning the application for a writ of habeas corpus, the petitioner makes clear that he is attacking a judgment and life sentence that the Iowa District Court for Webster County imposed in 1992. See State v. Knutson, No. FECR203035 (Webster County Dist. Ct. 1992); see also Knutson v. State, No. PCCV312516 (Webster County Dist. Ct. 2007) Knutson v. State, No. PCCV305272 (Webster County Dist. Ct. 1997).2 Under the AntiTerrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), applications for habeas corpus relief are subject to a one-year statute of limitations as provided in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). "By the terms of [28 U.S.C. §] 2244(d)(1), the one-year limitation period begins to run on one of several possible dates, including the date on which the state court judgment against the petitioner became final." Ford v. Bowersox, 178 F.3d 522, 523 (8th Cir. 1999).3 Here, Iowa state court criminal and civil records may be accessed at the following address: http://www.iowacourts.gov/Online_Court_Services/. See Stutzka v. McCarville, 420 F.3d 757, 760 n.2 (8th Cir. 2005) (addressing court's ability to take judicial notice of public records).
3 2

28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1) provides: A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to an application for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court. The limitation period shall run from the latest of-- (A) the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review; (B) the date on which the impediment to filing an application created by State action in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States is removed, if the applicant was prevented from filing by such State action; (C) the date on which the constitutional right asserted was initially recognized by the Supreme Court, if the right has been newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review; or (D) the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or claims presented could have been discovered through the exercise of due
(continued...)

2

the petitioner did not file his application within the one-year period of limitation. Indeed, the petitioner does not account for many years.4 Because it is clear that 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1) bars the petitioner's action, the application for a writ of habeas corpus shall be dismissed summarily under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Having determined that it is appropriate to summarily dismiss the petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus, the petitioner's application for appointment of counsel shall be denied as moot. In a habeas proceeding before a district judge, the final order shall be subject to review, on appeal, by the court of appeals for the circuit in which the proceeding is held. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(a). Unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability, an appeal may not be taken to the court of appeals. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A district court possesses the authority to issue certificates of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) and Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). See Tiedeman v. Benson, 122 F.3d 518, 522 (8th Cir. 1997). Under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), a certificate of appealability may only issue if a petitioner has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36, 123 S. Ct. 1029, 154 L. Ed. 2d 931 (2003); Garrett v. United States, 211 F.3d 1075, 1076-77 (8th Cir. 2000); Carter v. Hopkins, 151 F.3d 872, 873-74 (8th Cir. 1998); Cox v. Norris, 133 F.3d 565, 569 (8th Cir. 1997); Tiedeman, 122 F.3d at 523. To make such a showing, the issues must be debatable among reasonable jurists, a court could resolve the issues differently, or the issues deserve further proceedings. Cox, 133 F.3d at 569 (citing Flieger v. Delo, 16 F.3d 878, 882-83 (8th Cir. 1994)); see also Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 335-36 (reiterating standard).

(...continued)

diligence. The court notes that the Iowa Supreme Court's decision in State v. Heemstra, 721 N.W.2d 549, 558 (Iowa 2006), does not fall within 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(3). 3
4

Courts reject constitutional claims either on the merits or on procedural grounds. "`[W]here a district court has rejected the constitutional claims on the merits, the showing required to satisfy [28 U.S.C.] § 2253(c) is straightforward: the petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.'" Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 338 (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S. Ct. 1595, 146 L. Ed. 2d 542 (2000)). When a federal habeas petition is dismissed on procedural grounds without reaching the underlying constitutional claim, "the [petitioner must show], at least, that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling." See Slack, 529 U.S. at 484. Having thoroughly reviewed the record in this case, the court finds that the petitioner failed to make the requisite "substantial showing" with respect to the claims he raised in his application pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). Because there is no debatable question as to the resolution of this case, an appeal is not warranted. Accordingly, the court shall not grant a certificate of appealability pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253. If the petitioner desires further review of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 application, he may request issuance of the certificate of appealability by a circuit judge of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in accordance with Tiedeman, 122 F.3d at 520-22.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED: 1) 2) The petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus (docket no. 1) is denied. The petitioner's application for appointment of counsel (docket no. 2) is denied as moot. 4

3)

A certificate of appealability is denied.

DATED this 24th day of May, 2010.

5