United States District Court, D. Montana, Missoula Division
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES
Jeremiah C. Lynch United States Magistrate Judge
25, 2018, Petitioner Brad Daffin filed this action under 28
U.S.C. § 2254.Daffin is a state prisoner proceeding pro
se. For the reasons set forth below, Daffin's petition
should be dismissed.
28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition
Court is required to screen all actions brought by prisoners
who seek relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The Court must
dismiss a habeas petition or portion thereof if the prisoner
raises claims that are legally frivolous or fails to state a
basis upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. §
1915A(b)(1), (2). The Court must dismiss a habeas petition
"[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any
attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to
relief." Rule 4 Governing Section 2254 Cases. Because
Mr. Daffin's claims are unexhausted, his petition should
be dismissed without prejudice.
a jury trial in Montana's Twenty-First Judicial District,
Ravalli County, Daffin was convicted of eight counts of
Sexual Intercourse without Consent, three counts of Sexual
Assault, three counts of Sexual Abuse of Children, and two
counts of Distribution of Dangerous Drugs. The district court
sentenced Daffin to five consecutive life sentences. (Doc. 1
at 3, ¶ 4.)
filed a direct appeal arguing: (1) the district court abused
its discretion by admitting prior bad acts under Mont. R.
Evid. 404(b), and (2) the district court erred in its
application of Montana's Rape Shield Law. The Montana
Supreme Court affirmed Daffin's convictions on direct
appeal. State v. Daffin, 2017 MT 76, 387 Mont. 154,
392 P.3d 150; see also, (Doc. 1 at 3, ¶ 6.)
filed state petition for habeas relief. (Doc. 1 at 4,
¶12.) Daffin argued there were evidentiary errors and
insufficient evidence presented during trial and that he was
actually innocent of the offenses. The Montana Supreme Court
denied Daffin's petition. Daffin v. Green, OP
18-0408, Or. (Mont. July 31, 2018).
indicates that on the same day he filed the present §
2254 petition, he also filed a petition in the state district
court for postconviction relief. (Doc. 1 at 3, ¶
instant petition, Daffin claims: (1) he is actually innocent
and there was insufficient evidence to support a conviction
(Doc. 2 at 17-20); (2) he was denied his right to effective
cross examination under the Sixth Amendment (id. at
20-28); (3) the trial court's erroneous evidentiary
rulings violated his right to due process (id. at
29-40); (4) the prosecution unlawfully suppressed crucial
evidence of favorable treatment provided to a key witness and
the court unlawfully restricted cross examination of the same
witness (id. at 41-43); and, (5) cumulative error
resulted. Id. at 43-49.
appears Daffin may be intending to advance claims of
ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. (Doc. 1 at 5,
¶ 13 (A)(v); 6, ¶ 13 (B)(v)).
asks this Court to order a new trial, an evidentiary hearing,
or his release. Id. at 7, ¶16.