Randolph v. McDaniel et al
Filing
32
ORDERED that Rs' # 25 Motion to dismiss is GRANTED in part with respect to the claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel in ground 2. FURTHER ORD P shall have until 9/25/2014 to inform court re dismissal of claim, amended petitio n, exhaustion or move to stay; as specified herein. FURTHER ORD if P elects to dismiss specified claim, then Rs' response to remaining grounds due 45 days after service of declaration dismissing those grounds. FURTHER ORD if Rs file and serve an answer, then P shall have 45 days thereafter to file and serve a reply. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 8/26/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
6
7
8
9
LOUIS RANDOLPH, a.k.a. CLYDE
LEWIS,
10
Case No. 3:11-cv-00077-RCJ-VPC
Petitioner,
11
ORDER
vs.
12
E. K. MCDANIEL, et al.,
13
Respondents.
14
15
Before the court are the amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus (#21), respondents’
16
motion to dismiss (#25), and petitioner’s opposition (#30). The court finds that petitioner has not
17
exhausted his available remedies in state court for part of one ground, and the court grants the
18
motion in part.
19
Respondents first argue that grounds 1 and 2 of the amended petition are not exhausted.
20
Before a federal court may consider a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, the petitioner must
21
exhaust the remedies available in state court. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b). To exhaust a ground for relief, a
22
petitioner must fairly present that ground to the state’s highest court, describing the operative facts
23
and legal theory, and give that court the opportunity to address and resolve the ground. See Duncan
24
v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365 (1995) (per curiam); Anderson v. Harless, 459 U.S. 4, 6 (1982).
25
Respondents misstate ground 1, arguing that it is a claim that petitioner was vindictively
26
prosecuted because he is Muslim. Ground 1 actually is a claim that trial counsel provided
27
ineffective assistance because counsel would not call three witnesses to testify in support of
28
petitioner’s contention that he was being prosecuted vindictively because he is Muslim. Petitioner
1
presented the same claim in ground 1 of his state habeas corpus petition. Ex. 6, at 5A-5B (#26).
2
Ultimately, the Nevada Supreme Court rejected the claim. Ex. 9, at 2 (#26). Ground 1 is exhausted.
3
Respondents also misstate ground 2. Petitioner went through prison disciplinary
4
proceedings before he went to trial on criminal charges based on the same facts. Petitioner alleges
5
that at trial, the prosecution presented a copy of a form from the prison disciplinary proceedings
6
purporting to show that petitioner had pleaded guilty in those proceedings. See Petitioner’s Ex. 18
7
(#30). Petitioner alleges that he pleaded not guilty in the prison disciplinary proceedings. A tape
8
recording of the prison disciplinary proceedings existed. It was not played to the jury. Petitioner
9
contends that the recording would have demonstrated to the jury that he pleaded not guilty.
10
Respondents argue that petitioner is presenting the above facts as a substantive claim by itself. He
11
is not. These are facts in support of petitioner’s claim that trial counsel provided ineffective
12
assistance by not presenting the tape recording to the jury to show that he pleaded not guilty.
13
Petitioner presented the same claim in ground 5 of his state habeas corpus petition. Ex. 6, at 5I-5J
14
(#26). Ultimately, the Nevada Supreme Court rejected the claim. Ex. 9, at 2 (#26). The claim of
15
ineffective assistance of trial counsel in ground 2 is exhausted.
16
Petitioner also claims in ground 2 that appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance. In
17
his state habeas corpus petition, petitioner presented no claim of ineffective assistance of appellate
18
counsel regarding either the form or the recording from the prison disciplinary hearing. See Ex. 6
19
(#26). That part of ground 2 is unexhausted.
20
Ground 3 is a claim that petitioner’s criminal prosecution violates the Double Jeopardy
21
Clause of the Fifth Amendment because he already had been found guilty and punished for the same
22
offense in prison disciplinary proceedings. Respondents argue that ground 3 fails to state a claim
23
upon which the court can grant relief. This is an argument that goes to the merits of ground 3, and
24
respondents should present it in their answer to the amended petition.
25
The amended petition (#21) is mixed, containing both claims exhausted in state court and
26
claims not exhausted in state court, and it is subject to dismissal. See Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509,
27
521-22 (1982); Szeto v. Rushen, 709 F.2d 1340, 1341 (9th Cir. 1983). Petitioner may voluntarily
28
dismiss the unexhausted claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel in ground 2 and proceed
-2-
1
with the remaining grounds, he may voluntarily dismiss this action without prejudice while he
2
returns to state court to exhaust the claim of of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel in ground
3
2, or he may move to stay this action while he returns to state court to exhaust the claim of of
4
ineffective assistance of appellate counsel in ground 2. If petitioner chooses the second option, the
5
court makes no assurances about the timeliness of a subsequently filed federal habeas corpus
6
petition. If petitioner chooses the last option, he must show that he has “good cause for his failure
7
to exhaust, his unexhausted claims are potentially meritorious, and there is no indication that the
8
petitioner engaged in intentionally dilatory litigation tactics.” Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 278
9
(2005).
10
11
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that respondents’ motion to dismiss (#25) is GRANTED in
part with respect to the claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel in ground 2.
12
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner shall have thirty (30) days from the date of entry
13
of this order to do one of the following: (1) inform this court in a sworn declaration that he wishes
14
to dismiss the claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel in ground 2 of his amended
15
petition (#21), and proceed only on the remaining grounds for relief, (2) inform this court in a sworn
16
declaration that he wishes to dismiss his amended petition (#21) to return to state court to exhaust
17
his state remedies with respect to the claim of of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel in
18
ground 2 of his amended petition (#21), or (3) move to stay this action while he returns to state court
19
to exhaust his state remedies with respect to the claim of of ineffective assistance of appellate
20
counsel in ground 2 of his amended petition (#21). Failure to comply will result in the dismissal of
21
this action.
22
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if petitioner elects to dismiss the aforementioned claim of
23
his amended petition (#21) and proceed on the remaining grounds, respondents shall file and serve
24
an answer or other response to the remaining grounds within forty-five (45) days after petitioner
25
serves his declaration dismissing those grounds. If respondents file and serve an answer, it shall
26
comply with Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts.
27
///
28
///
-3-
1
2
3
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if respondents file and serve an answer, petitioner shall
have forty-five (45) days from the date on which the answer is served to file and serve a reply.
Dated: August 26, 2014.
4
5
_________________________________
ROBERT C. JONES
United States District Judge
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-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?