Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01492/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01492-27/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 535
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Death Penalty
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Ptn for Writ of H/C - Stay of Execution

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD J. VIEIRA

Petitioner,

vs.

KEVIN CHAPPELL, as Acting Warden of San

Quentin State Prison,*

Respondent.

_______________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 1:05-cv-01492 AWI

DEATH PENALTY CASE

ORDER RE: PETITIONER’S PRO SE

SUBMISSIONS FOR A HEARING ON

CONFLICT OF INTEREST ISSUES

This matter is before the Court on the April 27, May 11, and May 21, 2012 pro se

submissions presented for filing by Petitioner Richard J. Vieira (“Vieira”). The Court rejects filing

of all three documents.

I. Procedural History in the Present Case and Related State Habeas Proceedings 

The underlying crime involves the murder of four individuals by Vieira and five codefendants. One co-defendant accepted a plea for a reduced sentence and testified against the others. 

Vieira’s casewas severed from the remaining four co-defendants and tried first in Stanislaus County. 

On September 6, 1991 the jury found Vieira guilty of four counts of first degree murder and one

count of conspiracy. Additionally, the jury found true the multiple murder special circumstance

makingVieira eligible for the death penalty. Penaltyproceedings culminated on September 13, 1991

with a verdict of death on the conspiracy count and three of the four first degree murder counts. 

Vieira’s motions for new trial and to modify the verdict were denied on March 30, 1992 and his

death sentence was imposed. With a reduction of the death penalty to 25 years to life for the

conspiracy count, his conviction and sentence were affirmed by the California Supreme Court on

*Kevin Chappell is substituted as Respondent

 05dp1492.OReProSeMo2ClarifyConflict.Vie.wpd 1 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d).

Case 1:05-cv-01492-AWI-SAB Document 127 Filed 05/25/12 Page 1 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

March 7, 2005, as modified on May 26, 2005. People v. Vieira, 35 Cal. 4th 264 (2005). The

conviction and sentence became final on October 31, 2005 with the denial of Vieira’s petition for

writ of certiorari by the United States Supreme Court.

Vieira commenced the present action on November 22, 2005 with an application for stay of

execution and a request for appointment on counsel. Aftertwo attorneys were appointed to represent

him on March 15, 2006, Vieira filed his complete petition for writ of habeas corpus on October 26,

2006, which is the operative petition in this action (“Petition”). On October 31, 2006 he filed his

first state petition for habeas corpus in the California Supreme Court under case number S147688. 

With the pendency of the state petition, abeyance of federal proceedings was ordered on January 4,

2007. Vieira’s attorneys of record thereafter filed quarterly status reports of the state proceedings,

culminating with notice on June 30, 2009 that the California Supreme Court had denied his state

petition on June 24, 2009.

Briefing on the federal pleadings was complete on January 9, 2012 with the filing of Vieira’s

reply brief in support of the Petition. On January 23, 2012 Vieira filed a motion for an evidentiary

hearing and expansion of the record as to nine claims (Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 44, and 45) of the

Petition. The opposition brief was filed on March 15, 2012, and Vieira’s reply brief was filed on

April 19, 2012. The matter currently stands submitted.

During the aforementioned briefing process, on February 21, 2012, the Court appointed John

T. Philipsborn as independent counsel to address specified matters pertinent to Vieira’s

representation. As noted in the order terminating appointment of independent counsel filed

concurrently herewith, the confidential May 3, 2012 report prepared and filed under seal by Mr.

Philipsborn fulfilled the Court’s objectives in making the appointment.

The final matter bearing on the Court’s review of Vieira’s pro se submissions is the pendency

of a successive petition before the California Supreme Court. The docket entry of the state high

court shows that Vieira filed a pro se petition on May 16, 2011 under case number S193257, entitled

“Petition for writ of habeas corpus filed by condemned inmate in propria persona.” A second docket

entry on June 7, 2011 indicates Vieira filed additional evidence in support of his pro se petition. 

 05dp1492.OReProSeMo2ClarifyConflict.Vie.wpd 2

Case 1:05-cv-01492-AWI-SAB Document 127 Filed 05/25/12 Page 2 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

There are no other docket entries for case number S193257 and no further information is available

about this pending state matter. 

II. Related Civil Rights Complaint

On January 9, 2012, the same day briefing on the federal habeas pleadings was complete,

Vieira commenced a Civil Rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985, naming Governor

Brown, former Governor Schwarzenegger, current and former justices of the California Supreme

Court, the California Appellate Project, all certified death penalty approved defense attorneys, the

State of California together with all counties, cities, and other municipalities contained therein, and

various federal district court and appellate court judicial officers. 1:12-cv-0044 AWI MJS. The

complaint in that action reflects Vieira’s claim that he is incarcerated under an illegal sentence, that

the named defendants have engaged in a criminal conspiracy to create an illegal state capital

conviction review process, that the delay of years in resolving claims before the California Supreme

Court has prejudiced his ability to challenge his capital conviction, and that the combination of these

violations has effected a suspension of the writ of habeas corpus in violation of his Due Process

Rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. On May 22, 2012, the

Magistrate Judge filed Findings and Recommendations dismissing this action without prejudice.

III. The Pro Se Submissions

Each of the recent pro se submission is summarized.

A. The April 27, 2012 Submission

Verbatim, the caption of this submission is reads: “Court’s ORDER to Review Petitioner’s

Conflict of Interest .” It references the fact that the Court previously appointed independent counsel,

presents various arguments, and attaches privileged correspondence. The Court has not read the

privileged correspondence and does not intend to do so. 

B. The May 11, 2012 Submission

The May submission is a motion identical to the motion of Paul C. Bolin (“Bolin”) in Bolin

v. Chappell, Case no. 1:99-cv-5279 LJO, which Bolin submitted for filing, and which was filed on

April 16, 2012. In his motion, Vieira, like Bolin, asserts that the policies, procedures, rules, and

rulings of the California Supreme Court are unconstitutional because theydeprive him of meaningful

 05dp1492.OReProSeMo2ClarifyConflict.Vie.wpd 3

Case 1:05-cv-01492-AWI-SAB Document 127 Filed 05/25/12 Page 3 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

review of his claims. Like Bolin, Vieira argues the existence of a conflict of interest with his

attorneys because of their apparent acquiescence in the alleged illegal conduct of the California State

Court system. Attached to the motions of both Vieira’s and Bolin’s motions is a memorandum of

points and authorities of a co-inmate, Theodore Shove (“Shove”), filed in the Central District of

California, Case No. CV 12-2194 R. The Shove motion also alleges illegalities and suspension of

the writ due to state procedures. The Central District Court dismissed Shove’s action for lack of

exhaustion of state remedies on April 6, 2012. The order states that Shove’s direct appeal in his

capital case is still pending before the California Supreme Court.

C. The May 21, 2012 Submission

The most recent submission is a letter requesting the Court to rule on Vieira’s prior

submissions in the present case as well as in his civil rights action (1:12-cv-00044)

IV. Discussion

Local Rule 191, subdivision (d) of the Eastern District of California Local Rules, under the

heading “Attorney Representation,” provides in part: “Having appointed counsel to represent the

petitioner, the Court generally will not consider pro se documents about the presentation of his or

her case. However, the Court generally will consider pro se motions concerning petitioner’s

representation by appointed counsel.” 

With respect to the April 27, 2012 submission, Vieira’s complaints and concerns presented

in that document were referred to Mr. Philipsborn, as independent counsel. The Court finds that the

views presented in this April submission are superseded by the information relayed in Mr.

Philipsborn’s May 3, 2012 confidential report. 

Regarding the May 11, 2012 submission, although Vieira’s pleading is framed in terms of

a conflict of interest with his appointed attorneys, his complaint is not about lack of attorney

communication or mishandling of the merits of his substantive claims. Rather he bases his claim

of an alleged conflict of interest on the fact that his appointed attorneys feel bound by the policies,

procedures, rules, and rulings of the California Supreme Court, and further that they have declined

to bring claims challenging the California State Court system before this Court.

 05dp1492.OReProSeMo2ClarifyConflict.Vie.wpd 4

Case 1:05-cv-01492-AWI-SAB Document 127 Filed 05/25/12 Page 4 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

This is not a bona fide conflict of interest. Rather, it is an attempt to present substantive

claims to the Court which Vieira’s attorneys have not raised. Moreover, there is nothing the least

bit ineffectual about the attorneys’ declination to raise in this Court Vieira’s challenges to the

California State Court system. First, and foremost, Vieira’s case is fully briefed and ripe for decision

on the merits by this Court. Second, even if this Court believed the California State Court system

were flawed, it is without authority to provide a remedy. Finally, the claim Vieira wishes to pursue

is not cognizable on federal habeas corpus.

With respect to Vieira’s May 21, 2012 submission, in light of the Court’s finding that the

asserted conflict of interest with his attorneys does not require any remedial action and that the

substantive relief he seeks is not cognizable, no further action is required. Regarding the civil rights

action, the Court will enter an order on the Findings and Recommendations of the Magistrate Judge

within the time prescribed. 

V. Conclusion

The three submissions addressed herein shall not be filed. No remedy is available for the

claims Vieira advocates, and the claims are not cognizable. The ends of justice will be better served

if the Court focuses on the substantive claims currently under consideration. Vieira’s counsel are

directed to provide him with a copy of this order. The Clerk of the Court is directed to return the

three submissions to Vieira.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATE: May 25, 2012 

 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

Anthony W. Ishii

 United States District Judge

 05dp1492.OReProSeMo2ClarifyConflict.Vie.wpd 5

Case 1:05-cv-01492-AWI-SAB Document 127 Filed 05/25/12 Page 5 of 5