Walker v. Martel
Filing
226
ORDER VACATING EVIDENTIARY HEARING AND DIRECTING MERITS BRIEFING. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 11/6/14. (nahS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/6/2014)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
MARVIN PETE WALKER,
No. C 94-1997 PJH
13
14
15
16
17
Petitioner,
ORDER VACATING
EVIDENTIARY HEARING
AND DIRECTING MERITS
BRIEFING
v.
KEVIN CHAPPELL, Warden,
California State Prison at San
Quentin
Respondent.
/
18
19
INTRODUCTION
20
Pursuant to the court's request, the parties have submitted briefs regarding the
21
impact of Cullen v. Pinholster, 131 S. Ct. 1388, 1398 (2011) on this court’s decision – prior
22
to the issuance of Pinholster – granting petitioner’s motion for an evidentiary hearing on
23
Claim 2 (specifically Claims 2A, 2D, 2E and 2F). In Pinholster, the Supreme Court held
24
that in determining the reasonableness of a state court's ruling under section 2254(d)(1),
25
federal courts are “limited to the record that was before the state court that adjudicated the
26
claim on the merits.” The Court explained that “evidence later introduced in federal court is
27
irrelevant to § 2254(d)(1) review.” Id. at 1400.
28
For the following reasons, this court's grant of an evidentiary hearing is VACATED.
1
2
BACKGROUND
Petitioner was convicted and sentenced to death for murder, assault, robbery and
3
other crimes in August 1980. On March 31, 2011, this court, Judge Saundra Brown
4
Armstrong presiding, granted petitioner a writ of habeas corpus on his claim that he was
5
unconstitutionally shackled during his capital trial. In addition, the court granted petitioner's
6
claim that his trial counsel's failure to object to the shackling was prejudicially deficient
7
performance at both the guilt and penalty phases of petitioner's capital trial. The court also
8
ordered the state to either release or retry petitioner, in compliance with California state law
9
and the United States Constitution.
Respondent subsequently filed a timely notice of appeal from the court's order. The
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
Ninth Circuit reversed the court’s grant of the writ of habeas corpus, and remanded the
12
matter to the District Court. Petitioner subsequently appealed the Ninth Circuit’s decision to
13
the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court denied the petition for writ of
14
certiorari, and the Ninth Circuit issued its mandate to this court. On November 21, 2013,
15
this case was reassigned to the undersigned district judge. The parties were then ordered
16
to commence proceedings in accordance with the Ninth Circuit’s mandate.
17
ANALYSIS
18
Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA"), a
19
federal court cannot grant relief on any claim adjudicated on the merits by a state court
20
unless that adjudication:
21
22
23
(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable
application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court
of the United States; or
(2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the
facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.
24
28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). In Pinholster, the Supreme Court held that in determining the
25
reasonableness of a state court's ruling under § 2254(d)(1), federal courts are "limited to
26
the record that was before the state court that adjudicated the claim on the merits.” 131 S.
27
Ct. at 1398. The Court explained that "evidence later introduced in federal court is
28
2
1
irrelevant to § 2254 (d)(1) review." Id. at 1400. Several circuit courts have concluded that
2
under Pinholster, district courts should determine whether a petitioner's claims survive the §
3
2254(d)(1) standard on the basis of the state record alone, without reliance on evidence
4
developed in federal evidentiary hearings. See, e.g., Price v. Thurmer, 637 F.3d 831, 837
5
(7th Cir. 2011); Jackson v. Kelly, 650 F.3d 477, 492 (4th Cir. 2011); see also Gulbrandson
6
v. Ryan, 738 F.3d 976, 990-92 (9th Cir. 2013) (holding that, based on Pinholster, the district
7
court did not abuse its discretion by denying petitioner's request for an evidentiary hearing
8
regarding his ineffective assistance of counsel claims).
9
Respondent argues that in light of Pinholster, this Court should reconsider its grant
of an evidentiary hearing, and analyze whether any of petitioner's claims survive
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
§ 2254(d)(1) review before considering whether to hold an evidentiary hearing. Petitioner
12
counters that Pinholster does not preclude a federal court's ability to grant an evidentiary
13
hearing, and suggests that the court "postpone" the hearing until briefing and a ruling on
14
the § 2254(d)(1) issue.
15
Petitioner is correct that the Supreme Court in Pinholster did not hold that a district
16
court would err by conducting an evidentiary hearing before deciding that a claim survives
17
review under § 2254(d). 131 S. Ct. at 1411 n.20. ("[W]e need not decide . . . whether a
18
district court may ever choose to hold an evidentiary hearing before it determines that
19
§ 2254(d) has been satisfied"); see also Schriro v. Landrigan, 550 U.S. 465, 473 (2007)
20
("Prior to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), the decision
21
to grant an evidentiary hearing was left generally to the sound discretion of district courts.
22
That basic rule has not changed" (citations omitted)). Nevertheless, the Court stated that
23
its decision was "consistent" with Landrigan and noted that in Landrigan, it:
24
25
26
27
28
explained that '[b]ecause the deferential standards prescribed by § 2254
control whether to grant habeas relief, a federal court must take into account
those standards in deciding whether an evidentiary hearing is appropriate.'
[Landrigan, 550 U.S.] at 474. In practical effect, we went on to note, this
means that when the state-court record 'precludes habeas relief' under the
limitations of § 2254(d), a district court is 'not required to hold an evidentiary
hearing.' Id. at 474 (citing with approval the Ninth Circuit's recognition that 'an
evidentiary hearing is not required on issues that can be resolved by
reference to the state court record' (internal quotation marks omitted)).
3
federal court would not err by requiring a petitioner to demonstrate that relief on his claims
3
is not precluded by § 2254(d) before granting him an evidentiary hearing on those claims.
4
See also Woods v. Sinclair, 655 F.3d 886, 904 n.10 (9th Cir. 2011) (because review of a
5
claim adjudicated on the merits by the state court is limited to the state court record,
6
petitioner need not have been afforded an opportunity to develop evidence in support of his
7
argument); Ybarra v. McDaniel, 656 F.3d 984, 991 n.3 (9th Cir. 2011) ("remand to the
8
district court is unnecessary because there can be no additional factfinding by the district
9
court" under Pinholster.) ; Earp v. Ornoski, 431 F.3d 1158, 1166-67 (9th Cir. 2005) (until
10
petitioner can satisfy an exception to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), petitioner is not entitled to an
11
For the Northern District of California
Pinholster, 131 S. Ct. at 1399. The Court's statements indicate that, at a minimum, a
2
United States District Court
1
evidentiary hearing on the merits of his claims.) Accordingly, this court finds that the more
12
prudent approach is to vacate the evidentiary hearing, and proceed with merits briefing
13
under § 2254(d)(1) and/or § 2254(d)(2) for the remaining claims.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the court's previous Order granting an evidentiary hearing
is VACATED. Within ten days of the date of this Order, the parties should meet and confer,
and submit a proposed merits briefing schedule for Claims 2A, 2D, 2E and 2F, and any
other remaining claims in the petition. Petitioner is directed to file an opening brief
describing how those claims satisfy § 2254(d)(1) and/or § 2254(d)(2) on the basis of the
record that was before the state court that adjudicated the claim on the merits. Respondent
shall file an opposition, and petitioner may file a reply.
22
23
24
IT IS SO ORDERED.
25
26
Dated: November 6, 2014
_________________________
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge
27
28
4
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?