Morisette v. State of Washington

W.D. Washington

Morisette v. State of Washington

DecidedApril 15, 2024

Docket2:23-cv-01519

StatusUnknown

This text of Morisette v. State of Washington (Morisette v. State of Washington) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Morisette v. State of Washington, (W.D. Wash. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 9 AT SEATTLE 10 11 CHRISTOPHER MORISETTE, CASE NO. 2:23-cv-01519-TL 12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND v. RECOMMENDATION 13 ROB JACKSON, 14 Respondent. 15

16 17 This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of United States 18 Magistrate Judge Grady J. Leupold. Dkt. No. 19. Having reviewed the Report and 19 Recommendation as well as the remaining record and having received no objections, the Court 20 ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation with one modification. 21 The Court finds the Report and Recommendation thorough and well-reasoned. However, 22 the Court dismisses Petitioner’s fourth ground for relief for a different reason than the Magistrate 23 Judge. 24 1 Petitioner’s fourth ground for relief is that he “do[es] not currently have a lawyer 2 assigned” and ha[s] the right to an attorney.” Dkt. No. 8 at 8. This ground addresses an issue 3 independent of the challenge to his state court conviction and raises the question of whether 4 Petitioner is entitled to representation for his habeas petition.

5 In Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551 (1987), the Supreme Court stated, “[w]e have 6 never held that prisoners have a constitutional right to counsel when mounting collateral attacks 7 upon their convictions.” Id. at 555 (citing Johnson v. Avery, 393 U.S. 483, 488 (1969)). Rather, 8 Supreme Court cases have long established that “the right to appointed counsel extends to the 9 first appeal of right, and no further. Thus, we have rejected suggestions that we establish a right 10 to counsel on discretionary appeals.” Finley, 481 U.S. at 555 (citing Wainwright v. Torna, 455 11 U.S. 586 (1982) and Ross v. Moffitt, 417 U.S. 600 (1974)). Similarly, the Ninth Circuit has held 12 that “there is no federal constitutional right to habeas counsel.” Redd v. Guerrero, 84 F.4th 874, 13 880 (9th Cir. 2023). For this reason, the Court DISMISSES Petitioner’s fourth ground for relief. 14 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the following:

15 1. The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation. 16 2. Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is DENIED. 17 3. A certificate of appealability shall not issue in this case. 18 4. The Clerk is DIRECTED to send copies of this Order to Petitioner and to the Hon. 19 Grady J. Leupold. 20 Dated this 15th day of April 2024. 21 A 22 Tana Lin United States District Judge 23 24

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 9 AT SEATTLE 10 11 CHRISTOPHER MORISETTE, CASE NO. 2:23-cv-01519-TL 12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND v. RECOMMENDATION 13 ROB JACKSON, 14 Respondent. 15

16 17 This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of United States 18 Magistrate Judge Grady J. Leupold. Dkt. No. 19. Having reviewed the Report and 19 Recommendation as well as the remaining record and having received no objections, the Court 20 ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation with one modification. 21 The Court finds the Report and Recommendation thorough and well-reasoned. However, 22 the Court dismisses Petitioner’s fourth ground for relief for a different reason than the Magistrate 23 Judge. 24 1 Petitioner’s fourth ground for relief is that he “do[es] not currently have a lawyer 2 assigned” and ha[s] the right to an attorney.” Dkt. No. 8 at 8. This ground addresses an issue 3 independent of the challenge to his state court conviction and raises the question of whether 4 Petitioner is entitled to representation for his habeas petition.

5 In Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551 (1987), the Supreme Court stated, “[w]e have 6 never held that prisoners have a constitutional right to counsel when mounting collateral attacks 7 upon their convictions.” Id. at 555 (citing Johnson v. Avery, 393 U.S. 483, 488 (1969)). Rather, 8 Supreme Court cases have long established that “the right to appointed counsel extends to the 9 first appeal of right, and no further. Thus, we have rejected suggestions that we establish a right 10 to counsel on discretionary appeals.” Finley, 481 U.S. at 555 (citing Wainwright v. Torna, 455 11 U.S. 586 (1982) and Ross v. Moffitt, 417 U.S. 600 (1974)). Similarly, the Ninth Circuit has held 12 that “there is no federal constitutional right to habeas counsel.” Redd v. Guerrero, 84 F.4th 874, 13 880 (9th Cir. 2023). For this reason, the Court DISMISSES Petitioner’s fourth ground for relief. 14 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the following:

15 1. The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation. 16 2. Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is DENIED. 17 3. A certificate of appealability shall not issue in this case. 18 4. The Clerk is DIRECTED to send copies of this Order to Petitioner and to the Hon. 19 Grady J. Leupold. 20 Dated this 15th day of April 2024. 21 A 22 Tana Lin United States District Judge 23 24

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Morisette v. State of Washington, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morisette-v-state-of-washington-wawd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack