Dickson v. Valley

INITIAL REVIEW ORDER - 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
JOSH DICKSON,
Petitioner,
vs.
WARDEN VALLEY,
Respondent.
Case No. 1:25-cv-00568-REP
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER
Petitioner Josh Dickson (Petitioner) has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
challenging his state court conviction. Dkt. 3. Federal habeas corpus relief is available to
petitioners who are held in custody under a state court judgment that violates the
Constitution or laws of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a).
The Court is required to review each newly-filed habeas corpus petition to
determine whether it should be served upon the respondent, amended, or summarily
dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 2243. If “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
petition will be summarily dismissed. Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.
Habeas corpus law requires that a petitioner “exhaust” his state court remedies before
pursuing a claim in a federal habeas petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b). To exhaust a claim, a
Case 1:25-cv-00568-REP Document 8 Filed 02/09/26 Page 1 of 8

INITIAL REVIEW ORDER - 2
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). Unless a petitioner has exhausted his state court remedies relative to a
particular claim, a federal district court cannot grant relief on that claim, although it does
have the discretion to deny the claim. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2).
State remedies are considered technically exhausted, but not properly exhausted, if
a petitioner failed to pursue a federal claim in state court and there are no remedies now
available. O’Sullivan, 526 U.S. at 848. A claim may also be considered exhausted,
though not properly exhausted, if a petitioner pursued a federal claim in state court, but
the state court rejected the claim on an independent and adequate state law procedural
ground. Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 731-732 (1991). Under these
circumstances, the claim is considered “procedurally defaulted.” Id. at 731. A
procedurally defaulted claim will not be heard in federal court unless the petitioner shows
either that there was legitimate cause for the default and that prejudice resulted from the
default, or, alternatively, that the petitioner is actually innocent and a miscarriage of
justice would occur if the federal claim is not heard. Id.
As explained below, the Court concludes that some of Petitioner’s claims may be
procedurally defaulted. He may proceed to the next stage of litigation in this matter,
which is to determine whether any claim is procedurally barred.
Case 1:25-cv-00568-REP Document 8 Filed 02/09/26 Page 2 of 8

INITIAL REVIEW ORDER - 3
REVIEW OF PETITION
1. 	Background
Petitioner was convicted of grand theft and aggravated driving under the influence
in Case No. CR25-21-1820 in an Idaho state court. His judgment was entered on July 7,
2023.1 He filed a direct appeal, but received no relief. The Idaho Supreme Court denied
his petition for review on December 19, 2024.2 He states that he filed a post-conviction
petition, which was denied. He did not file an appeal.
2. 	Discussion
In the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Petitioner asserts claims of wrongful
conviction based on actual innocence, ineffective assistance of trial and direct appeal
counsel claim, insufficient evidence to support a conviction, and excessive sentencing.
As to Petitioner’s first claim, the law is clear that claims of actual innocence “have
never been held to state a ground for federal habeas relief absent an independent
constitutional violation occurring in the underlying state criminal proceeding.” Herrera v.
Collins, 506 U.S. 390, 400 (1993). This prohibition exists because “federal habeas courts
sit to ensure that individuals are not imprisoned in violation of the Constitution—not to
correct errors of fact.” Id. (citing Moore v. Dempsey, 261 U.S. 86, 87-88 (1923) (Holmes,
J.) (“[W]hat we have to deal with [on habeas review] is not the petitioners’ innocence or
1 https://portal-idaho.tylertech.cloud/odysseyportal/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 (search: CR25-
21-1820) (accessed 10.25.2025).
2 See Footnote 1.
Case 1:25-cv-00568-REP Document 8 Filed 02/09/26 Page 3 of 8

INITIAL REVIEW ORDER - 4
guilt but solely the question whether their constitutional rights have been preserved.”)).
Accordingly, Petitioner cannot proceed on a claim of actual innocence.
As to claims that generally should be brought on state post-conviction review, such as
most ineffective assistance of counsel claims, it is unclear whether Petitioner properly
exhausted his claims in the Idaho Supreme Court, because he states he did not file an
appeal after denial of his post-conviction petition. Therefore, he may be required to show
cause and prejudice or actual innocence to overcome the procedural default of some of
his claims; this procedural setting is the only place in a federal habeas corpus action that
actual innocence can play a role—showing that procedurally defaulted federal
constitutional claims should be heard on the merits. See Herrera, 506 U.S. at 404-05
(“[O]ur habeas jurisprudence makes clear that a claim of ‘actual innocence’ is not itself a
constitutional claim, but instead a gateway through which a habeas petitioner must pass
to have his otherwise barred constitutional claim considered on the merits.”).
As to Plaintiff’s excessive sentencing claim, he must have raised it on Eighth
Amendment constitutional grounds in the Idaho Supreme Court before he can proceed on
such a claim here. Generally, a claim that a sentence is “excessive” is a state law claim
that cannot be heard on federal habeas corpus review for lack of jurisdiction. Examples of
constitutional excessive sentencing claims include the following. In Rummel v. Estelle,
445 U.S. 263 (1980), the Supreme Court held that a sentence of life imprisonment with
an opportunity for parole after twelve years did not constitute cruel and unusual
Case 1:25-cv-00568-REP Document 8 Filed 02/09/26 Page 4 of 8

INITIAL REVIEW ORDER - 5
punishment in a situation where a defendant with two prior felony convictions was
convicted of obtaining $120.75 by false pretenses. In Hutto v. Davis, 454 U.S. 370, 372
(1982), the Supreme Court noted that it had “never found a sentence for a term of years
within the limits authorized by statute to be, by itself, a cruel and unusual punishment.”
The Court does not have the state court record before it to make a final
determination on these procedural matters. 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.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED:
1. 	Petitioner’s in Forma Pauperis Application (Dkt. 1) is GRANTED.
2. 	Petitioner’s request for appointment of counsel (contained in the petition) will be
reviewed after the Court has had an opportunity to review the state court record
and Respondent’s initial filing.
3. 	The Clerk of Court shall serve (via ECF) a copy of the Petition (Dkt. 3), together
with a copy of this Order, on L. LaMont Anderson, on behalf of Respondent, at
Mr. Anderson’s registered ECF address.
4. 	Within 120 days after entry of this Order, Respondent shall have the option of
filing either of the following: (1) a motion for summary dismissal or partial
summary dismissal on procedural grounds (which may be followed by an answer
Case 1:25-cv-00568-REP Document 8 Filed 02/09/26 Page 5 of 8

INITIAL REVIEW ORDER - 6
if the motion is unsuccessful); or (2) an answer and brief on the claims that were
adjudicated on the merits by the Idaho Supreme Court, 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).
5. 	Respondent shall file with the responsive pleading or motion, or within a
reasonable time period 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 shall be filed under seal. The
lodging of the remainder of the state court record is exempt from the redaction
requirements, as provided in District of Idaho Local Civil Rule 5.5(c).
6. 	If the response to the habeas petition is an answer, Petitioner shall prepare a reply
(formerly called a traverse), containing a brief rebutting Respondent’s answer and
brief, which shall be filed and served within 30 days after service of the answer.
Respondent has the option of filing a sur-reply within 14 days after service of the
reply. At that point, the case shall be deemed ready for a final decision.
7. 	If the response to the habeas petition is a motion, Petitioner’s response to the
motion shall be filed and served within 30 days after service of the motion, and
Respondent’s reply, if any, shall be filed and served within 14 days thereafter.
8. 	No party shall file supplemental responses, replies, affidavits or other documents
not expressly authorized by the Local Rules without first obtaining leave of Court.
Case 1:25-cv-00568-REP Document 8 Filed 02/09/26 Page 6 of 8

INITIAL REVIEW ORDER - 7
9. 	No discovery shall be undertaken in this matter unless a party obtains prior leave
of Court, pursuant to Rule 6 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.
10. 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. If
additional briefing is required on any issue, the Court will order it.
11. Each party shall 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 shall 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 copy of the document to the other party to the litigation.)
12. 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
Case 1:25-cv-00568-REP Document 8 Filed 02/09/26 Page 7 of 8

INITIAL REVIEW ORDER - 8
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.
13. Petitioner shall at all times keep the Court and Respondent advised of any changes
in address.
14. If Petitioner’s custodian changes at any point during this litigation, counsel for
Respondent shall file a Notice of Substitution of Respondent within 30 days of
such change, identifying the person who is substituted as a Respondent. See Fed.
R. Civ. P. 25(d); Rule 2(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.
DATED: February 9, 2026
________________________
Honorable Raymond E. Patricco
Chief U.S. Magistrate Judge
Case 1:25-cv-00568-REP Document 8 Filed 02/09/26 Page 8 of 8