Mark A. Hanson VS Craig Farwell, et al.
Filing
127
ORDER that Petitioner will have until 06/26/2017 to file a fourth amended petition; respondents will have 30 days to file an answer and petitioner will have 20 days to file a reply; Court will not look favorably upon any motion to extend th is briefing scheduled; petitioner's motion for evidentiary hearing ECF No. 122 is granted; evidentiary hearing will be scheduled; counsel for petitioner and respondents are to meet and confer regarding the terms of a prehearing scheduli ng order, by 06/26/2017, file a joint proposed prehearing scheduling order as described in order; the court will not look favorably upon any motion to extend the schedule for filing the joint proposed prehearing scheduling order. See order for further details and information. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 06/05/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
8
***
9
MARK A. HANSON,
10
11
12
Case No. 3:04-cv-00130-MMD-VPC
Petitioner,
ORDER
v.
CRAIG FARWELL, et al.,
13
Respondents.
14
15
In this habeas corpus action, the petitioner, Mark A. Hanson, filed a third amended
16
petition for writ of habeas corpus on April 1, 2016 (ECF No. 108). Respondents filed an
17
answer on September 27, 2016 (ECF No. 117). Hanson filed a reply on March 28, 2017
18
(ECF No. 120).
19
With his reply, Hanson also filed a motion for evidentiary hearing (ECF No. 122).
20
Respondents filed an opposition to that motion on April 11, 2017 (ECF No. 125). Hanson
21
filed a reply in support of the motion on May 1, 2017 (ECF No. 126).
22
The Court has examined Hanson’s third amended petition, respondents’ answer,
23
and Hanson’s reply, and determines that Hanson’s habeas petition should be further
24
amended, and a new answer and reply filed, in order to ensure that the pleadings properly
25
reflect the claims made by Hanson, and to ensure that the respondents have sufficient
26
opportunity to plead in response to all Hanson’s claims.
27
28
Hanson filed his third amended petition in order to add Ground 9, which is a
freestanding claim of actual innocence, asserting that he is actually innocent of murder.
1
(See Third Amended Petition (ECF No. 108) at 61-80.) Respondents answered that claim.
2
(See Answer (ECF No. 117) at 7-36.) But then, in his reply regarding Ground 9, Hanson
3
appears to have asserted another separate claim: that his federal constitutional right to
4
due process of law was violated by the introduction of flawed expert testimony. (See Reply
5
(ECF No. 120) at 12-25.) Hanson bases that newly asserted claim on Gimenez v. Ochoa,
6
821 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2016), cert. denied, 137 S.Ct. 503 (2016), in which the Ninth
7
Circuit Court of Appeals recognized such a claim for federal habeas corpus relief. In
8
Gimenez, the Ninth Circuit Court of appeals stated: “We join the Third Circuit in
9
recognizing that habeas petitioners can allege a constitutional violation from the
10
introduction of flawed expert testimony at trial if they show that the introduction of this
11
evidence ‘undermined the fundamental fairness of the entire trial.’” Gimenez, 821 F.3d at
12
1145, quoting Lee v. Houtzdale SCI, 798 F.3d 159, 162 (3d Cir. 2015). In Gimenez, the
13
court made clear that such a claim, of a due process violation stemming from introduction
14
of flawed expert testimony, is different and separate from a free-standing actual-
15
innocence claim, such as Hanson’s claim in Ground 9. See Gimenez, 821 F.3d at 1144,
16
citing Lee, 798 F.3d at 162 (“Such a petition for relief is not a ‘freestanding innocence
17
claim,’ but a due process claim.”).
18
In habeas corpus practice in the Ninth Circuit, as a general rule, new claims may
19
not be added in a reply to a respondent's answer. See, e.g., Cacoperdo v. Demosthenes,
20
37 F.3d 504, 507 (9th Cir. 1994) (reply is not the proper pleading to raise additional claims
21
for relief).
22
The Court will grant Hanson an opportunity to file a fourth amended habeas petition
23
to properly plead his claim based on Gimenez as a separate claim. The Court will also
24
set a schedule for respondents to answer Hanson’s fourth amended petition and for
25
Hanson to reply. The Court does not expect that the drafting and filing of these pleadings
26
will take a great deal of time and resources, as the new pleadings will be largely repetitive
27
of Hanson’s third amended petition and the answer and reply regarding that petition; the
28
Court sets the schedule for the new pleadings accordingly.
2
1
Turning to Hanson’s motion for an evidentiary hearing, the Court determines that
2
an evidentiary hearing is warranted with respect to Hanson’s contention that scientific
3
advancement since the time of his trial has undermined expert testimony on which his
4
conviction was based. Hanson asserts that he can overcome the procedural default and
5
limitations bars of his Grounds 1, 3 and 9, by making a showing that he is actually
6
innocent. (See Reply (ECF No. 120) at 27-29.) He argues that he can do so by showing
7
that advancements in science since his trial have undermined expert testimony on which
8
his conviction was based. The Court finds that Hanson has made a sufficient showing in
9
this regard to warrant an evidentiary hearing. See Roy v. Lampert, 465 F.3d 964, 969 (9th
10
Cir. 2006) (In context of equitable tolling, habeas petitioner “should receive an evidentiary
11
hearing when he makes ‘a good-faith allegation that would, if true, entitle him to equitable
12
tolling.’” (quoting Laws v. Lamarque, 351 F.3d 919, 919 (9th Cir. 2003)). Moreover, it
13
appears to the Court that the question of whether the science has changed such as to
14
undermine expert testimony on which Hanson’s conviction was based will also have a
15
bearing on the merits of Hanson’s Ground 9, as well as the Gimenez claim that the Court
16
anticipates Hanson will include in his fourth amended petition, and perhaps on the merits
17
of other of Hanson’s claims. The Court will, therefore, grant Hanson’s motion for
18
evidentiary hearing, and will issue a separate order scheduling an evidentiary hearing.
19
The Court will set a schedule for the parties to meet and confer and submit a joint
20
proposed prehearing scheduling order. The joint proposed prehearing scheduling order
21
should set a schedule, agreed upon by the parties, for necessary preparation for, and
22
exchange of information in advance of, the evidentiary hearing. As to any matter upon
23
which the parties cannot agree, the parties should include in the joint proposed prehearing
24
scheduling order a description of the issue and the parties’ positions. After the parties
25
submit the joint proposed prehearing scheduling order, the Court will either approve the
26
prehearing scheduling order proposed by the parties, or issue a different prehearing
27
scheduling order, setting a schedule for preparation for, and exchanges of information in
28
advance of, the evidentiary hearing.
3
1
It is therefore ordered that petitioner will have twenty (20) days from the entry of
2
this order to file a fourth amended petition, to plead his claim based on Gimenez as a
3
separate claim, as described above. Thereafter, respondents will have thirty (30) days to
4
file an answer to petitioner’s fourth amended petition. Petitioner will then have twenty (20)
5
days to file a reply. The Court will not look favorably upon any motion to extend this
6
briefing schedule.
7
It is further ordered that petitioner’s motion for evidentiary hearing (ECF No. 122)
8
is granted. The Court will hold an evidentiary hearing with respect to Hanson’s contention
9
that scientific advancement since the time of his trial has undermined expert testimony
10
on which his conviction was based. The evidentiary hearing will be scheduled.
11
It is further ordered that counsel for petitioner and counsel for respondents are to
12
meet and confer regarding the terms of a prehearing scheduling order, and, within twenty
13
(20) days from the entry of this order, the parties are to file a joint proposed prehearing
14
scheduling order, as described above. The Court will not look favorably upon any motion
15
to extend the schedule for the filing of the joint proposed prehearing scheduling order.
16
DATED THIS 6th day of June 2017.
17
18
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
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?