Cropper v. Thornell

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: May 16, 2022
• Docket: 2:19-cv-05618
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Leroy D. Cropper, No. CV-19-05618-PHX-GMS

10 Petitioner, DEATH PENALTY CASE

11 v. ORDER

12 David Shinn, et al.,

13 Respondents. 14 15 Pending before the Court is Petitioner Leroy D. Cropper’s Unopposed Motion to 16 Stay Proceedings. (Doc. 64.) Cropper, an Arizona death row inmate, filed an amended 17 habeas corpus petition July 23, 2021. (Docs. 17, 34.) Respondents filed their response on 18 December 17, 2021. (Doc. 48.) Cropper’s reply is due May 23, 2022. (See Doc. 53.) 19 Cropper moves to stay these proceedings in light of the Supreme Court’s grant of a writ of 20 certiorari in Cruz v. Arizona, 142 S. Ct. 1412 (U.S. Mar. 28, 2022) (Mem). The parties 21 have agree that Cropper will file his reply within 30 days of the Supreme Court’s decision 22 in Cruz. (Doc. 64.) 23 DISCUSSION 24 “A district court has discretionary power to stay proceedings in its own court.” 25 Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1109 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing Landis v. North 26 American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)). “A trial court may, with propriety, find it is 27 efficient for its own docket and the fairest course for the parties to enter a stay of an action 28 before it, pending resolution of independent proceedings which bear upon the case.” Leyva 1 v. Certified Grocers of California, 593 F.2d 857, 863 (9th Cir. 1979); see Lockyer v. Mirant 2 Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1110–11 (9th Cir. 2005) (explaining that a stay may be appropriate 3 where the resolution issues in the other proceeding would assist in resolving the proceeding 4 sought to be stayed). 5 In Cruz, the United State Supreme Court will consider an issue relevant to 6 Respondents procedural defense to two of Cropper’s sentencing-stage habeas claims. The 7 claims allege errors under Simmons v. South Carolina, 512 U.S. 154 (1994), which held 8 that when future dangerousness is an issue in a capital sentencing determination, the 9 defendant has a due process right to require that his jury be informed of his ineligibility for 10 parole. In State v. Cruz, 251 Ariz. 203 (2021), the Arizona Supreme Court held that Lynch 11 v. Arizona, 578 U.S. 613 (2016) (per curiam), which applied Simmons to Arizona capital 12 sentencing, did not represent a significant change in Arizona law under Arizona Rule of 13 Criminal Procedure 32.1(g). The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to 14 consider whether that holding “is an adequate and independent state-law ground for the 15 judgment.” Cruz, 142 S. Ct. 1412. 16 The proceedings in the Supreme Court will bear directly upon sentencing-related 17 issues in Cropper’s petition. Therefore, a stay of the deadline for the filing of Cropper’s 18 reply brief will further the interests of judicial efficiency and fairness to the parties. Leyva, 19 593 F.2d at 863; see Lockyer, 398 F.3d at 1110–11. 20 It is not necessary, however, to stay the entire case, as guilt-phase and other claims 21 are unaffected by the proceedings in Cruz. The Court expects Cropper to continue to 22 investigate and prepare these claims in anticipation of the reply brief and any requests for 23 evidentiary development. 24 Accordingly, 25 IT IS ORDERED denying Cropper’s motion to stay the case. (Doc. 64.) 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED staying the deadline for the filing of Cropper’s || reply brief until 30 days after the Supreme Court’s decision in Cruz v. Arizona, 142 S. Ct. 1412. 4 Dated this 13th day of May, 2022. ° Wars ) 6 A Whacrsay Fotos 7 Chief United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-3-