United States District Court, D. Oregon
Steven Zolotoff Petitioner, Pro Se
F. Rosenblum, Attorney General Nicholas M. Kallstrom,
Assistant Attorney General Department of Justice Attorneys
OPINION AND ORDER
MICHAEL H. SIMON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
brings this habeas corpus case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2254 challenging the legality of his state-court conviction
for Possession of a Weapon by an Inmate. For the reasons that
follow, the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (#2) is
2009, a jury convicted Petitioner of Possession of a Weapon
by an Inmate, and the trial court sentenced him to 36 months
in prison to be served consecutively to the prison term he
was already serving. The Oregon Court of Appeals awarded
Petitioner a new trial because the trial court failed to
instruct the jury on a lesser included offense involving
attempt, and the Oregon Supreme Court affirmed that decision.
State v. Zolotoff, 253 Or.App. 593, 595-96 (2012),
affirmed 354 Or. 711 (2014).
2014, Petitioner proceeded to his retrial. At the conclusion
of the bench trial, the trial court found Petitioner guilty
of Possession of a Weapon by an Inmate and once again imposed
a 36-month sentence. The Oregon Court of Appeals reversed an
award of attorney fees, but otherwise affirmed the trial
court's decision. State v. Zolotoff, 279 Or.App.
605 (2016). Petitioner did not seek review in the Oregon
next filed for post-conviction relief ("PCR") in
Umatilla County where the PCR court dismissed the PCR
Petition for failure to state a claim. Respondent's
Exhibits 124 & 125. Petitioner appealed that . decision,
but the Oregon Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal.
Respondent's Exhibit 12 6. Petitioner did not seek review
in the Oregon Supreme Court.
February 14, 2018, Petitioner filed this 28 U.S.C. §
2254 habeas corpus case raising the following grounds for
1. Petitioner is actually innocent of the crime of
2. Petitioner's appointed attorney from the second trial
was unprepared, untimely, and sought continuances only for
the purpose of billing additional time to the case; and
3. Petitioner's PCR attorney effectively abandoned him
when he "submitted that [Petitioner's] case was
timely filed his Answer and Response on October 29, 2018.
Although Petitioner's supporting memorandum was due on
December 28, 2018, Petitioner has not filed his brief, sought
additional time to do so, ...