(HC) Thompson v. Bird ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAFT L. THOMPSON, No. 2:22-cv-1196 TLN DB P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 L. BIRD, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding with a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 18 28 U.S.C. §2254. Petitioner raises Sixth Amendment claims regarding his right to counsel. 19 Petitioner made a motion mid-trial under People v. Marsden, 2 Cal. 3d 118 (1970) to challenge 20 his attorney’s representation. The trial court held a hearing on the motion. (See RT 216-17 (ECF 21 No. 13-3 at 222-23).) The transcript of the hearing was sealed and does not appear in this court’s 22 copy of the trial transcript. (See ECF No. 13-3 at 223.) However, the state court opinion 23 discusses the substance of that hearing. (ECF No. 13-8 at 3.) The hearing is relevant to 24 petitioner’s Sixth Amendment claims. While respondent lodged the state court record herein, it 25 does not appear respondent lodged a copy of the Marsden hearing transcript. 26 //// 27 //// 28 //// 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within twenty days of the filed date of this 2 | order respondent shall either: (1) lodge a copy of the transcript of the state court Marsden 3 | hearing;! or (2) inform the court where it can find the transcript in the currently-lodged record. 4 | Dated: March 22, 2023 5 6 4 .B ORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 | DLB:9 ig DB Prisoner Inbox/Habeas/R/thom1 196.marsden trserpt 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 | ‘It appears that the Marsden hearing transcript was unsealed — its substance is described in the parties’ publicly-filed appellate briefs and in the decision of the state Court of Appeal. However, 28 | if itis still technically sealed, respondent may lodge it with this court under seal.