Herrera v. Ramirez
| Decision Date | 30 September 2020 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 1:15-cv-00525-BLW |
| Parties | VALENTINO ALEX HERRERA, Petitioner, v. ALBERTO RAMIREZ, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Idaho |
Petitioner Valentino Alex Herrera is proceeding on his Amended Petition for Habeas Corpus Relief. (Dkt. 44.) Pending before the Court is Respondent Alberto Ramirez's Motion for Partial Summary Dismissal (Dkt. 51), requesting dismissal of Claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 11 through 50 in Petitioner's Amended Petition on various procedural grounds.
When a petitioner's compliance with threshold procedural requirements is at issue, a respondent may file a motion for summary dismissal, rather than an answer. White v. Lewis, 874 F.2d 599, 602 (9th Cir. 1989). Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases authorizes the Court to summarily dismiss a petition for writ of habeas corpus or any of its claims when "it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court." The Court takes judicial notice of the records from Petitioner's state court proceedings, lodged by the parties. See Fed. R. Evid. 201(b); Dawson v. Mahoney, 451 F.3d 550, 551 (9th Cir. 2006).
Petitioner has sought several extensions of time to file a response to the pending Motion for Partial Summary Dismissal. He has lodged several sets of exhibits, requested appointment of counsel, and requested a hearing to explain his claims rather than write a response to the pending motion. The Court previously concluded that appointment of counsel is not warranted.
Upon further review of the parties' filings, the Court again concludes that this case does not qualify for appointment of counsel and no oral argument or evidentiary hearing is warranted. See D. Idaho L. Civ. R. 7.1(d). Accordingly, the Court enters the following Order conditionally granting in part and denying in part Respondent's Motion for Partial Summary Dismissal.
Petitioner was serving a 19-day sentence in the Cassia County Jail for driving without privileges. Alan Garrett, who was a former Cassia County deputy sheriff and court bailiff, incarcerated on a DUI conviction, was also an inmate at the jail.
When each inmate arrives at the jail, he is given a rigid plastic coffee mug. Jail inmates eat meals together and take turns wiping down tables afterward. Alan Garrett decided to wipe down tables after breakfast on June 4, 2006, and Petitioner left the tableto go to the bathroom. Garrett moved his own coffee cup and then Petitioner's coffee cup to wipe underneath, setting the cups down in different places after he did so.
Inmate Roger Galow1 witnessed the incident and testified as follows at trial:
Galow testified that, after coffee was thrown in Garrett's face, Garrett got up to clean his glasses, and Petitioner shoved Garrett's glasses into his eyes. In what Galow classified as a defensive effort, Garrett "came across the table and grabbed ahold of [Petitioner] and pushed him against the wall and told him to knock it off." (Id., p. 99-100.) Galow said Garrett told Petitioner, "We don't need this here." (Id., p. 100.)
Galow further testified:
(Id., p. 100.) Galow testified that Petitioner threw the first punch, and Garrett never threw a punch. (Id., p. 101.)
As a result of the altercation, the State charged Petitioner with battery under Idaho Code § 18-903, enhanced from a misdemeanor to a felony pursuant to former I.C. 18-915(d) (2001), on the allegation that Petitioner committed the battery because of Garrett's former status as a "peace officer." The State later filed an amended information seeking a persistent violator enhancement for a third felony conviction. (State's Lodgings A-1, pp. 54-57; B-21, pp. 1-2.)
Cassia County Deputy Sheriff Tim Pethtel2 interviewed Garrett after the incident. (State's Lodging A-7, pp. 118-19.) In that interview, Garett did not identify any problems between Petitioner and himself but had heard that Petitioner "was mad at him because of him signing the warrants and putting him away for five years." (Id., p. 119.) Garrett said he regularly signed the warrants for people to be arrested in Cassia County, but that he didn't have anything further to do with them. Garrett told Pethtel that Petitioner may have seen Garrett's name on the warrant and assumed that he was the one who had arrested him. (Id., p. 118.)
Deputy Pethtel also interviewed Petitioner after the incident. Petitioner told him that he had left the table and his coffee cup for a moment, and when he returned, his cup had been moved, and he assumed it was moved by Garrett, who was wiping tables off. Petitioner asked Garrett why he had moved his coffee cup, and Garrett began to approach him in a threatening manner, and so Petitioner threw coffee on him to stop him, and then he hit Garrett with the coffee cup when the coffee did not stop him. (Id., pp. 116-17.) Pethtel said Petitioner said he had a problem with Garrett because he had been with the sheriff's office and he believed Garrett "had sent him to prison for five years." (Id., p. 117.) Petitioner admitted at trial that he discussed the incident with Deputy Pethtel, but he denied saying anything like "Garrett put me away for five years." (Id., p. 162.)
At trial Petitioner testified that he went to the restroom, came back, couldn't find his coffee cup, and asked where it was. Garrett said, "Oh, it's right here." Petitioner testified about what happened next:
At trial, the State put on evidence that Petitioner threw the coffee in Garrett's face and battered him because of Garrett's involvement in Petitioner's past criminal case. On cross-examination, Petitioner admitted that he was arrested and served prison time on a felony charge in 1995. Petitioner's charges were filed during the time when Garrett worked for Cassia County. (Id., p. 164.) The prosecutor showed Petitioner the 1995 affidavit in support of the criminal complaint in that case that bore Alan Garrett's typed name and signature. (Id., pp. 165-67.) Petitioner said he didn't recall seeing Garrett's name on his criminal case paperwork, but he admitted that he served five years on the 1995 charge. (Id., pp.167-68.) Petitioner admitted that Garrett brought him to court from the jail a number of times, and that Garrett had been the bailiff during Petitioner's 1995 criminal case (Id., p. 168.)
Cassia County Sheriff's Deputy Cary Bristol testified that Alan Garrett's personnel file showed that Garrett took his oath of office as a law officer on October 2, 1989, and that he passed Peace Office Standards Training (POST) on October 24, 1990.(Id., pp. 127-28; 122-24.) Bristol testified that not every employee at the Sheriff's Office is required to be POST certified. (Id., pp. 124-25.) Employees not under the requirement included civilian employees, dispatchers, and some bailiffs. (Id., p. 125.) Bristol testified that Garrett's responsibilities were not limited to serving as a bailiff; he also filled in to "do a little extra patrol of the fair grounds," "traffic control," and "a lot of transports." (Id.) Garrett was POST-trained because his extra duties "may have required him to make a custodial arrest." (Id., p. 126.) Bristol testified that Garrett was considered "an actual deputy with the Sheriff's Office," and that he faced life and death risks in his tasks, including making arrests with or without warrants, walking inmates from the jail to the courthouse, or driving inmates from the courthouse to Twin Falls. (Id., pp. 126-27.)
In addition to the felony battery charge, the prosecutor also charged Petitioner with a persistent violator enhancement. Petitioner was offered a plea bargain agreement in exchange for dropping the persistent violator charge, but he did not accept it. Petitioner...
To continue reading
Request your trial