Eric Ryan Hayde v. Brian Kibler

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: April 30, 2024
• Docket: 8:21-cv-01433
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5 6

7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 ) Case No. 8:21-cv-01433-HDV-SP 11 ERIC RYAN HAYDE, ) )

12 Petitioner, ) ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS ) 13 v. ) A UN ND IT R EE DC SO TM ATM EE SN MD AA GT II SO TN R O AF T E BRIAN KIBLER, ) JUDGE 14 ) Respondent. ) 15 ) ) 16 _____________________________ )

17 18 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition, records on file, 19 and the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. Further, the 20 Court has engaged in a de novo review of those portions of the Report to which Petitioner 21 has objected. 22 The Report recommends that the Petition be denied and that this action be 23 dismissed with prejudice. The Report finds that Petitioner is not entitled to relief for his 24 sole claim that the trial court terminated his self-representation and appointed counsel to 25 represent him during trial, in violation of his rights under the First and Sixth 26 Amendments. (ECF No. 33.) For the following reasons, Petitioner’s objections to the 27 Report (ECF No. 48) do not warrant a change to the Magistrate Judge’s findings or 28 recommendation. 1 The Report found that Petitioner’s self-representation was revoked because he 2 “was acting to prevent the speedy resolution of his case and to prevent the orderly 3 administration of justice.” (ECF No. 33 at 23.) The examples that the Report cited from 4 the record included the following: Petitioner insisted on the existence of a wiretap that 5 did not exist; he accused his investigators of concealing and falsifying evidence and 6 engaging in criminal conduct; he accused the prosecutor of withholding/concealing and 7 falsifying evidence; he accused the trial judge of various improprieties including 8 obstruction of justice and bias; and he regularly interrupted the trial judge. (Id. at 23-24.) 9 The record also showed that he appeared to delay the proceedings with the goal of 10 inducing the prosecutor to offer a plea deal for time served. (Id. at 22.) 11 Petitioner’s objections do not persuasively rebut these findings. Instead, he 12 continues to assert in his objections that there was a wiretap (ECF No. 48 at 3-4); that his 13 first investigator concealed documents and retaliated against him for complaining to the 14 trial court (id. at 4-5); that the prosecutor withheld evidence (id. at 5); that his next 15 investigator would not file his moving papers, refused to interview witnesses, and 16 committed fraud (id. at 6-7); that the prosecutor misled the trial court about documents in 17 an effort to push Petitioner into his preliminary hearing unprepared (id. at 8); that his 18 third investigator had been deliberately concealing and suppressing acquisition of defense 19 discovery (id.); and that the trial court only minimized, downplayed, and antagonized 20 Petitioner (id. at 11). Petitioner’s continued insistence that everyone involved in his trial 21 was deeply corrupt reinforces the Report’s finding that his actions constituted “serious 22 and obstructionist misconduct.” (ECF No. 33 at 24 (quoting Faretta v. California, 422 23 U.S. 806, 834 n.46 (1975)). 24 Petitioner further objects that the trial court improperly relied upon People v. 25 Fitzpatrick, 66 Cal. App. 4th 86, 92 (1998), in revoking Petitioner’s self-representation. 26 (ECF No. 48 at 12-13.) Specifically, Petitioner disagrees with the trial court’s findings 27 that he had abused the dignity of the courtroom and deliberately engaged in serious 28 obstructionist misconduct. (Id. at 13-15.) As the trial court found, however, Petitioner 1 || repeatedly accused everyone involved in the case of lying and corruption, and asserted 2 ||that time was needed to resolve this supposed obstruction of justice. (ECF No. 33 at 21.) 3 || The Report cited multiple cases for the proposition that a trial court reasonably could find 4 ||such conduct to be an abuse of the dignity of the courtroom and obstructionist. (ECF No. 5 at 24-25.) 6 Petitioner further objects that the trial court should have appointed him standby 7 counsel rather than terminating his self-representation. (ECF No. 48 at 16.) But 8 || Petitioner had no constitutional right to standby counsel. United States v. Kienenberger, 9 || 13 F.3d 1354, 1356 (9th Cir. 1994) (“A defendant does not have a constitutional right to 10 || ‘hybrid’ representation.”) (citing McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168, 183 (1984), and 11 || Locks v. Sumner, 703 F.2d 403, 407-08 (9th Cir. 1983)); see also United States v. Mabie, 12 F.3d 322, 329 (8th Cir. 2011) (rejecting an argument that the trial court “was 13 required to employ a less-restrictive means” prior to revoking a defendant’s pro per 14 || status). 15 The Court accepts the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. 16 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED Judgment will be entered denying the Petition and 17 || dismissing this action with prejudice. Dated: BN (ACY 20 HONORABLE HERNAN D. VERA 21 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28