Rodney v. Baker et al
ORDER - The court will permit either party to file, within 60 days of the date of this order (2/21/2020), any motion relevant to, or in furtherance of, the remand of the court of appeals. Responses to any such motions will be due within 30 days of the date the motion is filed. The moving party will then have 20 days within which to file a reply. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 12/23/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
KYLE J. RODNEY,
Case No. 3:13-cv-00323-RCJ-VPC
WILLIAM GITTERE, 1 et al.,
On March 1, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an
opinion vacating this court’s final order denying habeas relief and remanding the case for
additional proceedings. Rodney v. Filson, 916 F.3d 1254 (9th Cir. 2019). The order denying relief
was vacated because the court of appeals determined this court erred by not conducting an
analysis of the substantiality of Rodney’s ineffective-assistance-of-counsel (IAC) claims
pursuant to Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (2012). Id. at 1259-60.
The court of appeals also determined that this court’s current record “is insufficiently
developed for [the court] to be able to conclusively evaluate the substantiality of Rodney’s IAC
claims.” Id. at 1261. Accordingly, the court stated that, to further develop the record, “the district
court may allow discovery upon a showing of good cause under Rule 6 of the Rules Governing
William Gittere, warden of Ely State Prison, is substituted as respondent for Timothy Filson, former warden. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d).
§ 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, may hold an evidentiary hearing as warranted,
and may consider Monko's medical records and any other evidence relevant to the issue of the
substantiality of Rodney's IAC claims.” Id. at 1262.
Rodney’s procedurally defaulted IAC claims are that counsel: (1) failed to investigate or
challenge the prosecution's medical evidence at trial, (2) failed to timely object to the lay medical
testimony of the victim, Monko, (3) failed to use medical records to impeach Monko’s medical
testimony, and (4) failing to call any medical experts or treating medical providers to testify
regarding the Monko’s injuries. The court of appeals opined as follows:
The severity of Monko's injuries was potentially relevant to elements of
several of the charges of which Rodney was convicted. The district-court record
contains excerpts of Monko's medical records; however, in arguing whether there
is a reasonable probability that the jury's verdict would have been different if not
for counsel's alleged deficiencies, both parties refer extensively to additional
medical records that were not before the district court.
Id. at 1261. Thus, at a minimum, it is clear that this court would benefit from the record being
supplemented with these “additional medical records.”
As a starting point, however, the court will permit either party to file, within 60 days of
the date of this order, any motion relevant to, or in furtherance of, the remand of the court of
appeals. Responses to any such motions will be due within 30 days of the date the motion is
filed. The moving party will then have 20 days within which to file a reply.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED THIS 23rd day of December, 2019.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?