Edward Schad v. Charles Ryan
FILED OPINION (MARY M. SCHROEDER, STEPHEN R. REINHARDT and SUSAN P. GRABER) AFFIRMED. Judge: MMS Authoring, Judge: SR Dissenting, Judge: SPG Concurring. FILED AND ENTERED JUDGMENT. 
Page: 1 of 9
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
OCT 04 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EDWARD HAROLD SCHAD,
Petitioner - Appellant,
D.C. No. 2:97-cv-02577-ROS
CHARLES L. RYAN, Director, Arizona
Department of Corrections,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Roslyn O. Silver, Senior District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 1, 2013*
San Francisco, California
Before: SCHROEDER, REINHARDT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by Judge Schroeder:
SCHROEDER, Senior Circuit Judge:
Edward Harold Schad is scheduled to be executed by the State of Arizona on
October 9, 2013. He was convicted in 1985 of first degree murder in the strangling
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Page: 2 of 9
death of Lorimer Grove. Federal habeas proceedings began in 1997 and in the
intervening years have traversed every twist and turn in the path of federal habeas.
The case reached Supreme Court review for the third time last summer. The
history of the litigation is summarized in its opinion, Ryan v. Schad, 133 S. Ct.
2548, 2549–50 (2013) (per curiam). We set forth a somewhat fuller time line here.
December 14, 1978 - Schad is indicted for first degree murder in
June 27 - August 29, 1985 - Schad is convicted of first degree murder
and sentenced to death.
December 14, 1989 - Schad’s conviction and sentence are affirmed
on direct appeal. State v. Schad, 788 P.2d 1162 (Ariz. 1989).
June 21, 1991 - After granting certiorari (on instruction issues), the
Supreme Court affirms. Schad v. Arizona, 501 U.S. 624 (1991).
December 16, 1991 - Schad files for habeas relief in Arizona state
June 21, 1996 - The state court dismisses Schad’s petition for habeas
relief that claimed ineffective assistance at sentencing.
December 16, 1997 - Schad files for habeas relief in the district of
September 28, 2006 - The district court denies Schad’s petition for
habeas relief, Schad v. Schriro, 454 F. Supp. 2d 897 (D. Ariz. 2006),
holding Schad was not diligent in state court and denying on the
merits with respect to evidence presented in federal court.
Page: 3 of 9
January 12, 2010 - This court reverses the district court and remands
to determine whether Schad had been diligent in presenting evidence
regarding his mental health to the state court. Schad v. Ryan, 595 F.3d
907, 922–23 (9th Cir. 2010).
April 18, 2011 - The Supreme Court grants Arizona’s petition for
certiorari and remands back to this court to reconsider its decision in
light of the Supreme Court’s opinion in Cullen v. Pinholster, 131 S.
Ct. 1388 (2011). Ryan v. Schad, 131 S. Ct. 2092 (2011) (per curiam).
November 10, 2011 - This court affirms the district court’s denial of
Schad’s habeas petition on the merits. Schad v. Ryan, 671 F.3d 708,
722 (9th Cir. 2011) (per curiam).
July 27, 2012 - This court denies Schad’s Motion to Vacate Judgment
and Remand in light of Martinez v. Ryan, 132 S. Ct. 1309 (2012). No.
07-99005(CA9), Docs. 88, 91.
October 9, 2012 - The Supreme Court denies Schad’s certiorari
petition. Schad v. Ryan, 133 S. Ct. 432 (2012).
February 1, 2013 - This court denies Schad’s “Emergency Motion to
Continue Stay of the Mandate Pending En Banc Proceedings in
Dickens v. Ryan,” and construes it as a motion to reconsider its prior
denial of his Motion to Vacate Judgment and Remand in light of
Martinez. No. 07-99005(CA9), Doc. 102, pp. 1-2.
February 26, 2013 - This court grants Schad’s Motion to Vacate
Judgment and Remand. Schad v. Ryan, No. 07-99005, 2013 WL
791610 (9th Cir. Feb. 26, 2013).
June 24, 2013 - The Supreme Court grants certiorari, reverses, and
remands back to this court to issue the mandate. Ryan v. Schad, 133
S. Ct. 2548, 2552 (2013) (per curiam).
September 4, 2013 - This court issues its mandate affirming the
district court’s 2006 denial of habeas relief in all respects pursuant to
Page: 4 of 9
its third amended opinion of November 10, 2011. No. 0799005(CA9), Doc. 137, p. 1.
September 19, 2013 - The district court dismisses Schad’s motion for
relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) as an unauthorized
second or successive petition. Schad v. Ryan, No. CV-97-02577PHX-ROS, 2013 WL 5276407 (D. Ariz. Sept. 19, 2013).
Schad now appeals the district court’s dismissal of his Rule 60(b) motion
seeking to reopen the district court’s 2006 denial of his original federal habeas
petition. Underlying both this proceeding, and the attempts to stay the mandate
that led to the Supreme Court’s decision earlier this year, is Schad’s claim that he
received ineffective assistance of counsel in his state court sentencing, because his
counsel failed to present mitigating evidence of the effect that his childhood abuse
had on his mental condition at the time he committed the crime.
Federal court consideration of evidence or claims not presented in the state
court is generally barred. See Cullen v. Pinholster, 131 S. Ct. 1388 (2011), see
also Ryan v. Schad, 131 S. Ct. 2092 (2011). The Supreme Court later held,
however, in Martinez v. Ryan, 132 S. Ct. 1309 (2012), that ineffective assistance of
post-conviction counsel in some circumstances can establish cause for lifting the
procedural bar to a claim not pursued in state court proceedings. Schad contends
that his ineffectiveness claim can now be considered under Martinez.
Page: 5 of 9
When this ineffectiveness contention was presented to us in 2012 as a
motion to remand, we originally denied it. We reconsidered the denial in light of
intervening authority from our court. Schad v. Ryan, No. 07-99005, 2013 WL
791610, at *1 (9th Cir. Feb. 26, 2013). After we attempted to remand the matter to
the district court to decide whether Schad’s claim came within the Supreme
Court’s holding in Martinez, however, the Supreme Court ruled that there were no
extraordinary circumstances justifying our reconsideration of our earlier ruling.
Schad, 133 S. Ct. at 2552. Thus, we then issued the mandate for our November
2011 decision and Schad was barred from litigating his ineffectiveness of counsel
claim under Martinez.
Schad has now attempted to accomplish the same purpose by filing a Rule
60(b) motion to vacate the district court’s 2006 denial of habeas relief and thus
reopen his original habeas petition. He wants to show that his state post-conviction
counsel was ineffective in failing adequately to present a claim relating to his
mental condition at the time of sentencing. He offers some evidence, principally
an affidavit of a medical expert about the effect of his childhood abuse on his adult
mental condition, that he has asked the federal courts to consider since these
habeas proceedings began, and which we in 2011 effectively ruled was barred by
Pinholster, following the Supreme Court’s remand.
Page: 6 of 9
The district court in denying the Rule 60(b) motion recognized that Schad
had already raised in state court habeas proceedings a claim that trial counsel was
ineffective in failing to investigate his childhood abuse. The district court also
recognized that the claim now being made, i.e., the failure of trial counsel to
develop more evidence, is the same as it had rejected earlier. The district court
therefore concluded that it had already ruled on Schad’s claim and that there was
no separate procedurally defaulted claim that could be the basis for applying
In this appeal, Schad’s principal contention is that the district court erred
because he is presenting a different ineffective assistance claim than that presented
in state court. He is now contending that the federal claim of counsel
ineffectiveness with respect to the effect of childhood abuse is somehow distinct
from the earlier claim of ineffectiveness in failing to investigate the childhood
abuse itself. The two cannot be so easily separated, however, because the relevant
mitigating factor in sentencing was always the effect of the childhood abuse on his
adult mental state. As we explained in an earlier opinion, the point of presenting
new evidence of Schad’s dismal childhood was to show its effect on his adult
mental health. See Schad v. Ryan, 671 F.3d 708 (9th Cir. 2011). For example, we
Page: 7 of 9
At the sentencing hearing, defense counsel . . . [did not] seek a
comprehensive psychiatric evaluation to assess the negative effects of
that abuse. [Id. at 720.]
The expert [whose affidavit counsel attached] recommended that a
comprehensive psychological evaluation be performed . . . . [Id. at
Schad sought to present mitigating evidence . . ., including extensive
mental health records of [family members], as well as several
declarations discussing Schad’s childhood and its effect on his mental
health. The first declaration . . . provided an extremely detailed
discussion of the psychological impact of Schad’s abusive childhood.
[Id. at 721–22 (emphasis added).]
The claim presented here is thus not new. It is essentially the same as the
claim he brought in his original habeas petition. There is no separate procedurally
defaulted ineffectiveness claim.
We do not need to decide whether Rule 60(b) can ever be an appropriate
vehicle for bringing a Martinez argument with respect to a procedurally defaulted
claim. The district court in this case correctly held that “[p]etitioner’s Rule 60(b)
motion does not present a new claim; rather, he seeks a second chance to have the
merits determined favorably.” Schad v. Ryan, No. CV-97-02577-PHX-ROS, 2013
WL 5276407, at *6 (D. Ariz. Sept. 19, 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted).
The district court correctly dismissed the Rule 60(b) motion as a second or
Page: 8 of 9
Page: 9 of 9
Kelley J. Henry, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Nashville, Tennessee; and
Denise Irene Young, Denise I. Young, Tucson, Arizona, for petitioner-appellant
Edward Harold Schad.
Jon Anderson, Assistant Attorney General and Jeffrey A. Zick, Assistant Attorney
General, Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix, Arizona, for respondentappellee Charles L. Ryan, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?