Schneider v. Haynes

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: January 2, 2020
• Docket: 3:19-cv-05812
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 Bryan A Schneider, CASE NO. 3:19-cv-05812-BHS-JRC 11 Petitioner, ORDER 12 v. 13 Ron Haynes, 14 Respondent. 15 16 The District Court has referred this action filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 to United States 17 Magistrate Judge J. Richard Creatura. On August 30, 2019, petitioner initiated this action 18 challenging his state court convictions and sentence. See Dkts. 1. 3. Respondent filed his answer 19 on November 12, 2019. Dkt. 7 The Court has reviewed the petition, respondent’s answer, and the 20 state court record. See Dkts. 3, 7, 8. 21 In the answer, filed on November 12, 2019, respondent argues that petitioner has not yet 22 appealed his convictions or filed a petition for collateral relief. Dkt. 7 at 5. Respondent argues 23 that after December 2019, if petitioner does not file any form of collateral relief in state court, he 24 1 would be procedurally barred from doing so, and that the petition should be dismissed with 2 prejudice. Dkt. 7 at 5. As of the date of this order, the time to file a petition or motion for post- 3 conviction relief has passed. See RCW § 10.73.090 (no petition or motion for collateral attack 4 may be filed more than one year after the judgment becomes final). Based on the record before

5 the Court, it is not clear if petitioner sought collateral review in state court, or if he has 6 procedurally defaulted on all his claims. See Casey v. Moore, 386 F.3d 896, 920 (9th Cir. 2004); 7 Eisermann v. Penarosa, 33 F.Supp.2d 1269, 1274 (D. Haw. 1999) (“[I]f a petitioner has never 8 raised his federal claim to the highest state court available and is now barred from doing so by a 9 state procedural rule, exhaustion is satisfied because no state remedy remains available, but the 10 petitioner has procedurally defaulted on his claim.”). 11 Accordingly, the Court needs additional information to make a determination on the 12 petition. The Court orders respondent to supplement his answer and inform the Court whether 13 petitioner’s claims are procedurally defaulted. Respondent’s supplemental answer must be filed 14 on or before January 17, 2020. Petitioner’s supplemental response, if any, is due January 24,

15 2020. The Clerk is ordered to re-note the petition for consideration on January 24, 2020. 16 Dated this 2nd day of January, 2020. 17

18 A 19 J. Richard Creatura 20 United States Magistrate Judge

23 24