Fields v. LeGrand et al

Filing 42

ORDER granting 29 Motion to Dismiss. Claims dismissed as indicated in attached order. Answer to remaining claims due within 45 days. Reply due within 45 days of service of answer. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 3/24/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JC)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6
7
8
9

MATTHEW ARTHUR FIELDS,

10

Petitioner,

11

vs.

12

ROBERT LEGRAND, et al.,

13

Case No. 3:11-cv-00341-RCJ-WGC

Respondents.

ORDER

14
15

Before the court are the petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254

16

(#6), respondents’ second motion to dismiss (#29), petitioner’s opposition (#37), and respondents’

17

reply (#39). The court finds that some grounds for relief are procedurally defaulted, and the court

18

grants respondents’ motion.

19
20
21

Earlier, the court had found that petitioner had not exhausted his available state-court
remedies for the following claims:
1.
Claims in grounds 2 and 4 that counsel was ineffective because he failed to
cross-examine witness Rowe at sentencing;

22
23

2.
Claim in ground 2 that counsel was ineffective because he failed to obtain records
from his 2000 misdemeanor conviction;

24

3.
Claim in ground 4 that counsel was ineffective because he failed to present
mitigating evidence at sentencing, including family members’ testimony;

25
26

4.
Claim in ground 4 that counsel was ineffective because he failed to correct the presentence report;

27

5.

28

Ground 6.

1

Order (#19), at 7-8. Petitioner moved to stay the action while he returned to state court, and the

2

court granted the motion. Order (#23). Petitioner filed his second state habeas corpus petition in

3

the state district court on April 11, 2012. Ex. 51 (#31). The state district court dismissed the

4

petition because it was successive. Ex. 53 (#31). Petitioner appealed. The Nevada Supreme Court

5

affirmed, holding that the petition was untimely pursuant to Nev. Rev. Stat. § 34.726(1) and

6

successive pursuant to Nev. Rev. Stat. § 34.810. Ex. 70 (#32). Upon petitioner’s request, the court

7

reopened this action. Amended Order (#28). Respondents second motion to dismiss (#29)

8

followed.

9

A federal court will not review a claim for habeas corpus relief if the decision of the state

10

court regarding that claim rested on a state-law ground that is independent of the federal question

11

and adequate to support the judgment. Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 730-31 (1991).

12

In all cases in which a state prisoner has defaulted his federal claims in state court
pursuant to an independent and adequate state procedural rule, federal habeas review
of the claims is barred unless the prisoner can demonstrate cause for the default and
actual prejudice as a result of the alleged violation of federal law, or demonstrate that
failure to consider the claims will result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice.

13
14
15

Id. at 750; see also Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478, 485 (1986). The grounds for dismissal upon

16

which the Nevada Supreme Court relied in this case are adequate and independent state rules. Vang

17

v. Nevada, 329 F.3d 1069, 1074 (9th Cir. 2003) (Nev. Rev. Stat. § 34.810); Loveland v. Hatcher,

18

231 F.3d 640 (9th Cir. 2000) (Nev. Rev. Stat. § 34.726); Moran v. McDaniel, 80 F.3d 1261 (9th Cir.

19

1996) (same).

20

Petitioner argues unpersuasively that his return to state court was futile and that the court

21

should consider the procedurally defaulted claims on their merits. The court disagrees. Although

22

petitioner faced the time bar and the successive-petition bar when he returned to state court, both

23

§ 34.726 and § 34.810 allow those bars to be excused upon a showing of cause and prejudice. It is

24

difficult to make that showing, but failure is not automatic, and this court does not speculate how

25

state courts would rule on the question. More importantly, as respondents note correctly, the cause-

26

and-prejudice standard in state court is identical to the cause-and-prejudice standard that this court

27

uses to excuse procedural default. If petitioner were to concede that he could not show cause and

28

prejudice in state court, then he necessarily would concede that the grounds are procedurally
-2-

1

defaulted in federal court and that he could not show cause and prejudice to excuse those defaults.

2

In effect, petitioner would need to dismiss the unexhausted claims from his petition, or the court

3

would dismiss the entire petition because it contained both exhausted and unexhausted claims.

4

Instead, petitioner asked to return to state court. The attempt did not succeed, but the court cannot

5

hold that the attempt was futile. In the end, petitioner is no worse off than if he had dismissed the

6

unexhausted grounds.

7

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that respondents’ second motion to dismiss (#29) is

8

GRANTED. The following claims are DISMISSED with prejudice because they are procedurally

9

defaulted:

10

1.
Claims in grounds 2 and 4 that counsel was ineffective because he failed to
cross-examine witness Rowe at sentencing;

11
12

2.
Claim in ground 2 that counsel was ineffective because he failed to obtain records
from his 2000 misdemeanor conviction;

13

3.
Claim in ground 4 that counsel was ineffective because he failed to present
mitigating evidence at sentencing, including family members’ testimony;

14
15

4.
Claim in ground 4 that counsel was ineffective because he failed to correct the presentence report;

16

5.

17

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondents shall have forty-five (45) days from the date

Ground 6.

18

of entry of this order to file and serve an answer to the remaining claims, which shall comply with

19

Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. Petitioner

20

shall have forty-five (45) days from the date on which the answer is served to file a reply.

21

Dated: March 24, 2015.

22
23

_________________________________
ROBERT C. JONES
United States District Judge

24
25
26
27
28
-3-