Spears, et al v. Schriro, et al

Filing 179

ORDER granting Petitioner's 176 Motion and no later than September 23, 2022, Petitioner is to move for any appropriate relief based on Ramirez. Signed by Senior Judge Stephen M McNamee on 9/2/2022. (LFIG)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Anthony Marshall Spears,
Petitioner,

10
11

v.

12

Charles L. Ryan, et al.,

13

No. CV-00-01051-PHX-SMM
DEATH PENALTY CASE
ORDER

Respondents.

14
15

Before the Court is Petitioner Anthony Spears’s Motion for Ninety Days to

16

Reevaluate Arguments in Light of Shinn v. Ramirez. (Doc. 176.) Spears is an Arizona death

17

row inmate seeking federal habeas relief. His case is before this Court on limited remand

18

from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for reconsideration of, among other issues, two

19

ineffective assistance claims in light of Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (2012). (Doc. 140.)

20

Spears asks the Court to defer any ruling on his remanded claims while he evaluates the

21

impact of the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Ramirez, 142 S. Ct. 1718 (2022).

22

Spears argues that as a result of Ramirez “the legal landscape has shifted in a way

23

that potentially requires amended allegations.” (Doc. 176 at 3.) He also notes that lead

24

counsel in his case has retired and the additional time is required for new lead counsel to

25

become familiar with the case. (Id.) Respondents oppose the motion. (Doc. 177.) They

26

contend that Spears’s request for delay lacks specificity, that any additional requests for

27

relief are foreclosed by Martinez and Ramirez, that the four claims at issue have been fully

28

briefed, and that Spears may be engaging in dilatory litigation tactics. (Id. at 6–9.)

1

Spears cites several cases where district courts have granted such delays such as the

2

one he seeks. (Doc. 176 at 3–4.) In these cases, from the Western District of Tennessee,

3

the requests were unopposed and were made in the first part of June 2022, less than three

4

weeks after the Ramirez decision on May 23, 2022. Spears waited 10 weeks to make his

5

request for further delay, and now almost 90 days have passed since the decision.

6

Under these circumstances, the Court finds that a 30-day delay, in addition to the

7

time that has already passed since Ramirez was decided, is more than sufficient for Spears

8

to reevaluate his arguments and seek whatever relief he feels is appropriate.

9
10
11
12

Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED granting Spears’s motion (Doc. 176) as follows: no later than
September 23, 2022, Spears to move for any appropriate relief based on Ramirez.
Dated this 2nd day of September, 2022.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-2-