David Khourny Pech v. Tristan Lemon

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California addresses Petitioner’s motion to amend a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition after exhausting an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim. The court recommends granting amendment only as to trial counsel’s alleged failure to impeach witness Bankeut, finding the remaining ineffective-assistance allegations untimely and unsupported by relation back under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c). The court also directs the Clerk to terminate former counsel from the case.

Holdings

1. The proposed ineffective-assistance claim was untimely, and petitioner was not entitled to equitable tolling because he made no argument demonstrating diligence or an extraordinary circumstance that prevented timely filing.
2. Most of the proposed ineffective-assistance allegations did not relate back because they were supported by facts differing in time and type from the facts underlying the timely claims.
3. The allegation that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to impeach witness Bankeut related back to timely claims and should be permitted as part of the amended petition.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the newly exhausted ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim was timely under AEDPA or entitled to equitable tolling.
2. Whether the proposed ineffective-assistance allegations related back to the timely filed habeas claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c)(2).
3. Whether counsel's alleged failure to impeach witness Bankeut shared a common core of operative facts with timely claims concerning prosecutorial argument and the sufficiency of the lying-in-wait evidence.
4. Whether the court should terminate Mr. Spolin as petitioner's counsel after his disbarment.

Disposition

other