Hayes v. Valley

INITIAL REVIEW ORDER - 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
MICHAEL T. HAYES,
Petitioner,
v.
RANDY VALLEY,
Respondent.
Case No. 1:25-cv-00505-DCN
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER
Petitioner Michael T. Hayes has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
challenging a state court conviction. See Pet., Dkt. 3. The Court now reviews the Petition
to determine whether it is subject to summary dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2243 and
Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases (“Habeas Rules”). Having reviewed the
record, and otherwise being fully informed, the Court enters the following Order allowing
Petitioner to proceed on some of the claims in the Petition.
REVIEW OF PETITION
1. 	Background
In a jury trial in the Fourth Judicial District Court in Ada County, Idaho, Petitioner
was convicted of assault or battery on certain personnel, in violation of Idaho Code § 18-
915. The judgment of conviction was entered on November 20, 2017. Petitioner was
sentenced to two-and-a-half years in prison, to be served consecutively to the sentence
Case 1:25-cv-00505-DCN Document 10 Filed 02/05/26 Page 1 of 9

INITIAL REVIEW ORDER - 2
Petitioner was already serving.1 Pet. at 1–2; State v. Hayes, 462 P.3d 1110, 1114 (Idaho
2020). Petitioner unsuccessfully pursued a direct appeal as well as state post-conviction
remedies. Pet. at 2–3.
The Court construes the instant Petition as asserting the following claims2:
Claim 1: 	Ineffective assistance of trial counsel based on counsel’s
actions with respect to (a) “suppress[ing]” certain medical
records; (b) failing to subpoena or call witnesses as requested
by Petitioner, and failing to subpoena or call a medical expert
such 	as 	April 	Dawson; 	(c) “suppress[ing]” 	148 	exhibits;
(d) limiting Petitioner’s trial testimony; (e) failing to utilize
certain documents turned over by the prosecution during
discovery; 	(f) failing 	to 	file 	notices 	of 	disclosure 	during
discovery; (g) failing to file a motion to disqualify the judge;
(h) failing 	to 	object 	to 	the 	prosecution’s 	eliciting 	false
testimony; and (i) failing to object to the prosecutor’s statement
in closing argument that Petitioner was not the victim and did
not have serious injuries.
Claim 2: 	Prosecutorial misconduct by (a) eliciting false evidence and
perjury 	from 	a 	state’s 	witness; 	and 	(b) conspiring 	with
Petitioner’s defense counsel to cover up or suppress certain
medical records in violation of Brady v. Maryland.
Claim 3: 	Ineffective assistance of direct appeal counsel for failing to
raise issues of (a) prosecutorial misconduct; (b) ineffective
assistance of trial counsel; and (c) improper admission of
character evidence.
1 The United States Supreme Court has held that a prisoner serving consecutive sentences “is ‘in custody’
under any one of” those sentences for purposes of the requirement that a habeas petitioner must be in
custody at the time he files a habeas petition. Peyton v. Rowe, 391 U.S. 54, 67 (1968) (holding that prisoners
incarcerated under consecutive state-court sentences may seek habeas relief from sentences they had not
yet begun to serve); see also Garlotte v. Fordice, 515 U.S. 39, 41 (1995) (holding that a petitioner may
“attack a conviction underlying the sentence that ran first in a consecutive series, a sentence already served,
but one that nonetheless persists to postpone [the petitioner’s] eligibility for parole”).
2 The Court has reorganized some of Petitioner’s claims to more accurately reflect the assertions in the
Petition and has added alphanumeric identifiers to Petitioner’s claims for ease of reference. If the
Court’s construction of any claim is incorrect, or if the Court has inadvertently omitted a claim, Petitioner
must inform the Court and Respondent of all corrections within 28 days after entry of this Order.
Case 1:25-cv-00505-DCN Document 10 Filed 02/05/26 Page 2 of 9

INITIAL REVIEW ORDER - 3
Claim 4: 	The trial court committed error in Petitioner’s post-conviction
proceedings.
Id. at 6–51. At various points in the Petition, Petitioner also alleges violations of Idaho state
law.
2. 	Discussion
The Court is required to review a habeas corpus petition upon receipt to determine
whether it is subject to summary dismissal. Habeas Rule 4. Summary dismissal is
appropriate where “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.”3 Id.
Federal habeas corpus relief is available to prisoners who are held in custody under
a state court judgment that violates the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.
See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). Habeas relief is not available for violations of state law, such as
claims of error during state post-conviction proceedings. Lewis v. Jeffers, 497 U.S. 764,
780 (1990); Franzen v. Brinkman, 877 F.2d 26, 26 (9th Cir. 1989) (per curiam).
Accordingly, 	Claim 	4—which 	asserts 	post-conviction 	error—will 	be 	dismissed 	as
noncognizable, as will all of Petitioner’s state law claims.
A petitioner must “exhaust” his state court remedies before pursuing a claim in a
3 However, a court undertaking a Rule 4 review is not required to comb through a Petitioner's exhibits or
other documents—such as memoranda, affidavits, or the petitioner's state court briefing—to determine
whether a petitioner may proceed past initial screening. Nor is a respondent required to consider or address
such documents when responding to the petition. This is because, under Habeas Rule 2(c), the petition must
“specify all the grounds for relief available to petitioner” and “state the facts supporting each ground.” That
is, 	a 	habeas 	petitioner 	must 	include—in 	the petition itself—“all 	of 	the 	information 	necessary
to adjudicate that Petition.” Sivak v. Christensen, No. 1:16-CV-00189-BLW, 2018 WL 4643043, at *2 n.3
(D. Idaho Sept. 27, 2018) (unpublished). Therefore, the Court has considered only the Petition itself (Dkt.
3) in its Rule 4 review, not the other documents attached to the Petition.
Case 1:25-cv-00505-DCN Document 10 Filed 02/05/26 Page 3 of 9

INITIAL REVIEW ORDER - 4
federal habeas petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b). To properly exhaust a claim, a habeas
petitioner must fairly present it as a federal claim to the highest state court for review in
the manner prescribed by state law. See O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999).
If, in this case, Petitioner did not properly exhaust his claims in the Idaho Supreme
Court 	before 	filing 	his 	federal 	Petition, 	he 	may 	face 	procedural 	challenges 	from
Respondent. The Court does not have the full record before it to determine whether
Petitioner has properly exhausted his claims. The Court will order the Clerk of Court to
serve the Petition upon Respondent, who will be permitted to file an answer or a pre-answer
motion for summary dismissal and will be ordered to provide a copy of relevant portions
of the state court record to this Court.
Accordingly, Petitioner may proceed on the Petition to the extent that the claims
(1) are cognizable—meaning they actually can be heard—in a federal habeas corpus action,
(2) were timely filed in this Court, and (3) were either properly exhausted in state court or
are subject to a legal excuse for any failure to exhaust in a proper manner. At this time, the
Court expresses no opinion as to whether any of these issues applies to any of Petitioner’s
claims.
MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
Petitioner 	has 	requested 	appointment 	of 	counsel. 	See 	Dkt. 	8. 	There 	is 	no
constitutional right to counsel in a habeas corpus action. Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S.
722, 755 (1991). A habeas petitioner has a right to counsel, as provided by rule, if an
evidentiary hearing is required in the case. See Habeas Rule 8(c). In addition, the Court
may exercise its discretion to appoint counsel for an indigent petitioner in any case where
Case 1:25-cv-00505-DCN Document 10 Filed 02/05/26 Page 4 of 9

INITIAL REVIEW ORDER - 5
required by the interests of justice. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(h); 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B).
Whether counsel should be appointed turns on the petitioner’s ability to articulate the
claims in light of the complexity of the legal issues and the petitioner’s likelihood of
success on the merits. See Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983) (per
curiam).
At this point, the Court concludes that, based on the evidence currently in the record
(Dkt. 1), it is unlikely that Petitioner will be able to meet the strict standards of 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254(d) for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. Therefore, at this time the Court will
deny the request for appointment of counsel. The Court will notify the parties if it
determines, at a later date, that appointment of counsel may be appropriate.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED:
1. 	Petitioner’s request for appointment of counsel (Dkt. 8) is DENIED without
prejudice.
2. 	Petitioner’s Motion for Case Status Update (Dkt. 9) is MOOT with the
issuance of this Initial Review Order. If Petitioner intends to seek an
evidentiary hearing as stated in the Motion for Case Status Update, he must
file a separate motion requesting such a hearing.
3. 	Petitioner may proceed on his federal claims set forth in Claims 1 through 3
of the Petition. Claim 4 and all of Petitioner’s state law claims are
DISMISSED with prejudice.
Case 1:25-cv-00505-DCN Document 10 Filed 02/05/26 Page 5 of 9

INITIAL REVIEW ORDER - 6
4. 	The Clerk of Court will serve (via ECF) a copy of the Petition (Dkt. 1), along
with any attachments, together with a copy of this Order, on L. LaMont
Anderson, on behalf of Respondent, at Mr. Anderson’s registered ECF
address.
5. 	Within 120 days after service of the Petition, Respondent may file either of
the following: (1) a motion for summary dismissal or partial summary
dismissal on procedural grounds (which may be followed by an answer on
the merits if the motion is unsuccessful); or (2) an answer on the merits that
also includes a brief summary (between one paragraph and several pages) of
any procedural defenses for any claims (which may be argued in the
alternative). The Court may consider the merits of claims that may be subject
to a procedural bar if the merits analysis is more straightforward than a
complicated procedural analysis.
6. 	Respondent must file with the responsive pleading or motion, or within a
reasonable time thereafter, a copy of all portions of the state court record
previously transcribed that are relevant to a determination of the issues
presented. Any presentence investigation reports or evaluations—which
must be provided to the Court if the petition contains any sentencing
claims—must be filed under seal. It is presumed that Petitioner has a copy of
the state court record from his previous counsel. If Petitioner does not,
Petitioner may file a motion to obtain relevant portions of the record, wherein
Case 1:25-cv-00505-DCN Document 10 Filed 02/05/26 Page 6 of 9

INITIAL REVIEW ORDER - 7
Petitioner must state which portions of the state court record Petitioner does
possess.
7. 	If the response to the habeas petition is an answer, Petitioner must file a reply
(formerly called a traverse), containing a brief rebutting Respondent’s
answer and brief, which must be filed and served within 28 days after service
of the answer and brief. Respondent has the option of filing a sur-reply within
14 days after service of the reply. At that point, the case will be deemed ready
for a final decision.
8. 	If the response to the habeas petition is a motion, Petitioner’s response must
be filed and served within 28 days after service of the motion, and
Respondent’s reply, if any, must be filed and served within 14 days
thereafter.
9. 	In the response to the habeas petition, whether a pre-answer motion or an
answer and brief, Respondent must include citations to all portions of the
state 	court 	record 	that 	support 	Respondent’s 	assertions. 	Although
Respondent may include citations to a state appellate court decision that
describes events that took place in a lower court, Respondent must also
include citations to the underlying lower court record.
10. 	If any of Petitioner’s claims is currently under consideration in state court
proceedings, any party may file a motion to stay this case pending the
outcome of those proceedings. See Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 277–78
(2005); Mena v. Long, 813 F.3d 907, 908 (9th Cir. 2016).
Case 1:25-cv-00505-DCN Document 10 Filed 02/05/26 Page 7 of 9

INITIAL REVIEW ORDER - 8
11. 	No party may file supplemental responses, replies, affidavits, or other
documents not expressly authorized by the Local Rules or by this Order
without first obtaining leave of Court.
12. 	No discovery may be undertaken in this matter unless a party obtains prior
leave of Court, pursuant to Rule 6 of the Habeas Rules.
13. 	The parties may, but need not, file the following in this matter: (1) notices of
non-objections to motions to which they do not object; (2) responses to
motions for appointment of counsel; (3) responses to motions that are
meritless, frivolous, or filed in contravention of this Order; or (4) notices of
intent not to file a reply. The Court will notify the parties if additional
briefing is required on any issue.
14. 	Each 	party 	must 	ensure 	that 	all 	documents 	filed 	with 	the 	Court 	are
simultaneously served via the ECF system or by first-class mail upon the
opposing party (through counsel if the party has counsel), pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 5. Each party must sign and attach a proper mailing
certificate to each document filed with the court, showing the manner of
service, date of service, address of service, and name of the person upon
whom service was made, or as specified by the applicable ECF rules. The
Court will not consider ex parte requests unless a motion may be heard ex
parte according to the rules and the motion is clearly identified as requesting
an ex parte order, pursuant to Local Rule 7.2. (“Ex parte” means that a party
has provided a document to the court, but that the party did not provide a
Case 1:25-cv-00505-DCN Document 10 Filed 02/05/26 Page 8 of 9

INITIAL REVIEW ORDER - 9
copy of the document to the other party to the litigation.)
15. 	All Court filings requesting relief or requesting that the Court make a ruling
or take an action of any kind must be in the form of a pleading or motion,
with an appropriate caption designating the name of the pleading or motion,
served on all parties to the litigation, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 7, 10 and 11, and Local Rules 5.2 and 7.1. The Court will not
consider requests made in the form of letters.
16. 	Petitioner must at all times keep the Court and Respondent advised of any
change in address.
17. 	If Petitioner’s custodian changes at any point during this litigation, Petitioner
must file a Notice of Substitution of Respondent, within 28 days of such
change, identifying the person who is substituted as Respondent. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 25(d); Habeas Rule 2(a).
DATED: February 5, 2026
_________________________
David C. Nye
U.S. District Court Judge
Case 1:25-cv-00505-DCN Document 10 Filed 02/05/26 Page 9 of 9