Schmidt v. Kirkegard et al
Filing
8
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6 in full. Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 1 DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. A certificate of appealability is GRANTED on the issue of whether the exhaustion requirement should be excused due to delay in Schmidt's state post-conviction proceedings. Signed by Judge Donald W. Molloy on 7/30/2014. Mailed to Schmidt. (TAG, )
FILED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
BUTTE DIVISION
JUL 3 0 201~
Cle~.l!.S District Court
DiStrict. Of Montana
MIssoula
CV 14-08-BU-DWM-JCL
JASON SCHMIDT,
Petitioner,
ORDER
vs.
LEROY KIRKEGARD and the
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE
STATE OF MONTANA,
Respondents.
This action was filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Montana, Butte Division on February 12,2014. Petitioner Jason Schmidt seeks a
writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Because Schmidt is a prisoner,
upon filing, this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Jeremiah C.
Lynch. See L.R. 72.2(a). Judge Lynch issued proposed Findings and
Recommendations regarding the Petition on June 13,2014. (Doc. 6.) On June 27,
2014, Schmidt timely filed an Objection to the proposed Findings and
Recommendations. (Doc. 7.)
The portions of Judge Lynch's proposed Findings and Recommendations to
which Schmidt objects are reviewed de novo, otherwise the report is reviewed for
-1
clear error. When a party objects, the Court reviews the relevant portions of the
United States Magistrate Judge's proposed findings and recommendations de
novo. 28 U.S.C. § 636. When no party objects, the Court reviews the findings and
recommendations of a United States Magistrate Judge for clear error. McDonnell
Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Mach., Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir.
1981). Clear error is present only ifthe Court is left with a "definite and firm
conviction that a mistake has been committed." United States v. Syrax, 235 F.3d
422, 427 (9th Cir. 2000).
Judge Lynch's report contains no mistake of fact or law. It will be adopted
in-full. Schmidt objects to Judge Lynch's recommendation that the Petition be
dismissed without prejudice to re-filing because Schmidt has failed to exhaust
state remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b) and (c) plainly require a litigant to exhaust
claims in state courts prior to seeking recourse in the federal courts. Rose v.
Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 520 (1982). While the exhaustion requirement may be set
aside where effective corrective process is not available in state court due to
significant delay, "there is no talismanic number of years or months after which
due process is automatically violated." Coe v. Thurman, 922 F .2d 528, 531 (9th
Cir. 1990). In evaluating whether a period of delay denies a petitioner effective
corrective process such that the exhaustion requirement ought be excused, a
-2
district court considers the length of the delay, the reason for the delay, the
defendant's assertion of his right, and prejudice to the defendant. Id.
Judge Lynch's finding that it is not yet appropriate to find state corrective
process ineffective is well-reasoned and will stand. While a period ofthree years
has elapsed since Schmidt first filed his petition for postconviction relief, he only
recently filed an amended petition with the state trial court. Adjudication of the
petition, as amended, will take time. The petition as amended has only been
pending before the State District Court for two months. The period of delay
Schmidt cites is presumably due to the time needed for the state court to assess the
petition and consider it in due course, with the aim of resolving the issues
presented completely and accurately. Furthermore, the cause of the delay is also
likely attributable to Schmidt's own actions. His recent amendment ofthe petition
and letters to the state court may serve to prolong the proceedings, as each require
review and analysis by the state district court. While Schmidt has vigilantly
asserted his right to due process, he has not shown significant prejudice attendant
to the delay cited. The delay in this case is not such that the state corrective
process is ineffective. The exhaustion requirement set forth in 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254(b) and (c) stands. Because some of Schmidt's claims are not fully
exhausted, the Petition now in issue will be dismissed without prejudice.
-3
Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that Judge Lynch's Findings and
Recommendations, (Doc. 6), are ADOPTED IN FULL.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Jason Schmidt's Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus, (Doc. 1), is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED a certificate of appealability is GRANTED on
the issue of whether the exhaustion requirement should be excused due to delay in
Schmidt's state postconviction proceedings.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall enter by a
separate document judgment of dismissal without prejudice and shall close this
case.
DATED thi.Jt day of July, 2014.
-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?