Decker v. Shinn

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: March 11, 2022
• Docket: 2:21-cv-00761
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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

9 Curtis Dewayne Decker, No. CV-21-00761-PHX-DWL (MTM)

10 Petitioner, REPORT & RECOMMENDATION AND ORDER 11 v.

12 David Shinn, et al.,

13 Respondents. 14 15 TO THE HONORABLE DOMINIC W. LANZA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE: 16 Petitioner Curtis Dewayne Decker has filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus 17 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 1).1 18 I. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSION 19 Petitioner was convicted of first-degree murder and first-degree burglary. Petitioner 20 filed a habeas petition asserting five grounds for relief. Because the petition is untimely by 21 over three years and not entitled to equitable tolling, the Court recommends it be denied 22 and dismissed with prejudice. 23 II. BACKGROUND 24 A. Conviction & Sentencing. 25 The Arizona Court of Appeals summarized the facts of the case as follows:2 26 1 Petitioner has also filed a “Motion for Order to Produce State Court’s Record and 27 Transcripts” (doc. 11) which the Court will address and deny herein. 28 2 The Court presumes the Arizona Court of Appeals’ summary of the facts is correct. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1); Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765, 769 (1995). 1 The victim lived with his girlfriend and her mother, Judy, in Judy’s apartment. Decker was friends with Judy and visited her regularly. One day, 2 Decker and the victim fought in Judy’s apartment. After pushing each other 3 and wrestling, the victim drew a knife and cut Decker’s face. Decker told the victim to step outside to “finish this,” but the victim stayed inside and Decker 4 rode away on a bicycle. 5 About 20 minutes later, Decker returned with two or three people in a car. 6 They all got out of the car, and Decker walked to Judy’s front door. The 7 apartment manager—looking on from her own apartment—saw Judy standing beside the open door as Decker stood in the doorway, drew a gun, 8 and quickly fired three shots. Decker then laughed, put the gun in his pocket, 9 and left in the car. The victim, who was inside Judy’s apartment, died from two close-range gunshot wounds to the chest. Judy later told the victim’s 10 daughter that she had seen Decker “in the doorway” and that Decker had shot 11 the victim.

12 After the apartment manager identified Decker from a photographic lineup, 13 Decker was arrested and charged with first-degree murder and first-degree burglary. After an initial mistrial due to a hung jury, Decker was convicted 14 as charged, with the jury unanimously finding both premeditated and felony murder. Decker was sentenced to concurrent terms of life in prison with the 15 possibility of release after 25 years for the murder conviction and 10.5 years 16 for the burglary conviction, and he timely appealed. 17 State v. Decker, 239 Ariz. 29, 30 (App. 2016).3 18 B. Direct Appeal. 19 In his opening brief on appeal, Petitioner claimed the trial court’s denial of his 20 Batson4 challenges violated his constitutional rights to due process, equal protection, and 21 a fair trial and that substantial evidence did not support his conviction for first-degree 22 burglary. (Doc. 8-1, Ex. G, at 25–51). In a supplemental brief, Petitioner claimed the trial 23 court erred by overruling his objection to the State’s statement in closing argument that a 24 bullet entering a residence constitutes “entry” for purposes of establishing first-degree 25

26 3 See Doc. 8-1, Ex. A, at 3–5 (indictment, 7/12/2012); Doc. 8-1, Ex. B, at 7–9 (mistrial declared, 5/30/2013); Doc. 8-1, Ex. C, at 11–12 (guilty verdicts, 2/25/2014); Doc. 8-1, Ex. 27 D, at 14–17 (sentencing order, 3/28/2014); Doc. 14-1, Ex. O, at 13–33 (sentencing 28 transcript, 3/28/2014); Doc. 8-1, Ex. F, at 21–23 (notice of appeal, 4/4/2014). 4 Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986). 1 burglary. (Doc. 8-1, Ex. J, at 82–95). On January 7, 2016, the Arizona Court of Appeals 2 affirmed the convictions and sentences. (Doc. 8-1, Ex. L, at 120–28). On August 30, 2016, 3 the Arizona Supreme Court denied review. (Doc. 8-2, Ex. O, at 2). On September 29, 2016, 4 the Arizona Court of Appeals issued its mandate. (Doc. 8-2, Ex. P, at 4). 5 C. Post-Conviction Relief (“PCR”). 6 1. Initial Proceeding. 7 On April 21, 2017, Petitioner filed a delayed notice of PCR claiming ineffective 8 assistance of counsel. (Doc. 8-2, Ex. Q, at 15–18). He asserted he was “without fault” for 9 the untimeliness because his “comprehension is limited as determined by [an] attached 10 letter.” (Id. at 17). On June 1, 2017, the PCR court dismissed the proceeding as “untimely 11 by more than five months” and noted Petitioner had not provided the letter referenced in 12 the notice. (Doc. 8-2, Ex. R, at 20–22). On July 5, 2017, Petitioner filed a letter from 13 George DeLong, a psychologist who examined Petitioner on August 22, 2012 and found 14 him competent for purposes of plea bargaining, and a letter from an individual named Cory 15 Brookins, who stated Petitioner “will not be able to read and comprehend court materials 16 without specialized assistance.” (Doc. 8-2, Ex. S, at 24–26).5 Nearly two years later, on 17 June 5, 2019, Petitioner filed a “Motion for Status.” (Doc. 8-2, Ex. T, at 29–31). On June 18 15, 2019, the PCR court issued a minute entry stating it had reviewed the motion and letters 19 filed on July 5, 2017 and advising Petitioner that his PCR proceeding had been dismissed 20 on June 1, 2017. (Doc. 8-2, Ex. U, at 33). 21 2. Successive Proceedings. 22 On July 31, 2019, Petitioner filed a second notice of PCR and a PCR petition. (Doc. 23 8-2, Ex. V, at 35–76). Petitioner asserted the previous notice had been prepared by “the 24 5 In his petition and reply, Petitioner included a copy of Dr. DeLong’s letter 25 containing an additional page absent in the 2-page copy in Respondents’ response cited 26 here. (Compare Doc. 1, Ex. I, at 95–97; Doc. 14, Ex. G, at 38–40 with Doc. 9-2, Ex. S, at 25–26). There are questions concerning the completeness of the 3-page copy given that the 27 second and third pages are both labeled page “2” and the third page ends in the middle of 28 a sentence and has a different font than the other two pages. (See Doc. 1, Ex. I, at 95–97; Doc. 14, Ex. G, at 38–40). 1 unit paralegal” and that he is “mentally disable[d] with an IQ below 60” which the 2 sentencing judge “recognized.”6 (Id. at 35, 37). Petitioner claimed the trial court improperly 3 instructed the jury by: “omit[ting] the essential element of intent” from the instruction on 4 first-degree burglary, “provid[ing] an instruction that allowed the jury to find [him] guilty 5 of premeditated first-degree murder for intending to cause serious physical injury or any 6 injury,” and providing an instruction that impermissibly “shifted the burden of proof to 7 [him].” (Id. at 43). Petitioner further claimed his trial and appellate counsel were ineffective 8 and that these claims were not precluded. (Id. at 37, 43). On August 19, 2019, the PCR 9 court dismissed the petition. (Doc. 8-2, Ex. W, at 78–79). On October 1, 2020, the Arizona 10 Court of Appeals granted review but denied relief. (Doc. 8-2, Ex. Y, at 152–57). On March 11 4, 2021, the Arizona Supreme Court denied review. (Doc. 8-2, Ex. Z, at 159). 12 On October 5, 2021, Petitioner filed a third PCR notice and petition. (Doc. 14-1, Ex. 13 Q, at 38–61). Petitioner states this petition is “still pending.” (Doc. 14 at 9). 14 III. PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 15 On April 26, 2021,7 Petitioner filed the present petition asserting five grounds for 16 relief as summarized by the Court: 17 In Ground One, Petitioner alleges that the trial court’s denial of Petitioner’s 18 Batson challenges to the State’s peremptory strikes of two prospective minority jurors violated Petitioner’s constitutional rights to due process, 19 equal protection, and a fair trial. 20 In Ground Two, Petitioner alleges that his burglary conviction is not 21 supported by substantial evidence. 22 In Ground Three, Petitioner alleges that the trial court denied Petitioner’s 23 right to a fair trial and due process by incorrectly stating the law for first 24 degree burglary and omitting the essential element of intent from the jury

25 6 At sentencing, the judge considered Petitioner’s “limited mental function” as a 26 mitigating factor. (Doc. 14-1, Ex. O, at 30–31). 7 Petitioner states he placed his petition in the prison mailing system on April 26, 27 2021. (Doc. 1 at 12). A document filed by a pro se prisoner litigant is deemed “filed” on 28 “the date the document is delivered to a prison official for mailing.” Stewart v. Cate, 757 F.3d 929, 933 n.3 (9th Cir. 2014). The Clerk docketed the petition on April 29, 2021. 1 instruction, and by providing an instruction that allowed the jury to find Petitioner guilty of first-degree murder for “intending to cause serious 2 physical injury or any injury.” 3 In Ground Four, Petitioner alleges that his rights to a fair trial, due process, 4 and equal protection were violated when the burden of proof instruction 5 “incorrectly convey[ed] the concept of reasonable doubt to the jury, shifted the burden of proof to Petitioner, and impermissibly ease[d] the prosecution’s 6 burden of proof.” 7 In Ground Five, Petitioner alleges that his trial and appellate counsel 8 provided ineffective assistance. 9 10 (Doc. 4 at 1–2). Respondents argue the petition should be denied because it is untimely and 11 certain claims are procedurally defaulted. (Doc. 8). Petitioner replied. (Doc. 14). 12 IV. TIMELINESS 13 A. Statute of Limitations. 14 “The federal Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) 15 establishes a 1-year statute of limitations for filing a federal habeas corpus petition.” Pace 16 v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 410 (2005). In general, the limitations period runs from the 17 date “the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the 18 time for seeking such review.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A). If a petitioner does not seek 19 review by the United States Supreme Court, the judgment becomes “final” upon the 20 expiration of time for seeking such review. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 150 (2012); 21 Summers v. Schriro, 481 F.3d 710, 717 (9th Cir. 2007) (“The period of ‘direct review’ 22 includes the 90–day period within which a petitioner can file a petition for a writ of 23 certiorari from the United States Supreme Court, whether or not the petitioner actually files 24 such a petition.” (cleaned up)); see Sup. Ct. R. 13. 25 B. Statutory Tolling. 26 “‘[A] properly filed application for State post-conviction or other collateral review’ 27 tolls AEDPA’s statute of limitations for the pendency of the state court proceedings.” 28 Curiel v. Miller, 830 F.3d 864, 868 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2)). 1 “Properly” filed means the application was filed in compliance with “applicable laws and 2 rules governing filings.” Artuz v. Bennett, 531 U.S. 4, 8 (2000). “[T]ime limits, no matter 3 their form, are ‘filing’ conditions.” Pace, 544 U.S. at 417. Thus, an untimely application 4 for state post-conviction relief does not toll the statute. Id. at 414 (“When a postconviction 5 petition is untimely under state law, ‘that [is] the end of the matter’ for purposes of 6 § 2244(d)(2).” (citation omitted)); Curiel, 830 F.3d at 868 (“A habeas petition that is 7 untimely under state law is not ‘properly filed.’” (quoting Pace, 544 U.S. at 413)). 8 C. Equitable Tolling. 9 A petitioner is entitled to equitable tolling if he shows “‘(1) that he has been 10 pursuing his rights diligently, and (2) that some extraordinary circumstance stood in his 11 way’ and prevented timely filing.” Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631, 648 (2010) (quoting 12 Pace, 544 U.S. at 418). “The diligence required . . . is ‘reasonable diligence,’ not 13 ‘maximum feasible diligence.’” Id. at 653. However, “‘the threshold necessary to trigger 14 equitable tolling . . . is very high, lest the exceptions swallow the rule.’” Waldron-Ramsey 15 v. Pacholke, 556 F.3d 1008, 1011 (9th Cir. 2009) (citations omitted). Thus, “equitable 16 tolling is available . . . only when extraordinary circumstances beyond a prisoner’s control 17 make it impossible to file a petition on time and the extraordinary circumstances were the 18 cause of the prisoner’s untimeliness.” Ford v. Gonzalez, 683 F.3d 1230, 1237 (9th Cir. 19 2012) (cleaned up; emphasis in Ford). 20 V. DISCUSSION 21 A. Petitioner’s petition is untimely. 22 Direct review concluded on November 28, 2016 when the time for seeking review 23 by the United States Supreme Court expired—90 days after the Arizona Supreme Court 24 denied review on August 30, 2016 (doc. 8-2, Ex. O, at 2). See Gonzalez, 565 U.S. at 150; 25 Summers, 481 F.3d at 717. Petitioner’s petition was therefore due on November 28, 2017. 26 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A). Because Petitioner did not file his petition until April 26, 2021, 27 it is untimely by 1,245 days (roughly three and a half years). 28 // 1 B. Petitioner is not entitled to statutory tolling. 2 Petitioner is not entitled to tolling under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2) because at no point 3 did he have a “properly” filed PCR petition in state court. Each of his PCR proceedings 4 were dismissed as untimely. (See Doc. 8-2, Ex. R, at 20–22; Doc. 8-2, Ex. W, at 78–79; 5 Doc. 8-2, Ex. Y, at 152–57; Doc. 8-2, Ex. Z, at 159). “When a postconviction petition is 6 untimely under state law, ‘that [is] the end of the matter’ for purposes of § 2244(d)(2).” 7 Pace, 544 U.S. at 414 (citation omitted); see Curiel, 830 F.3d at 868. 8 C. Petitioner is not entitled to equitable tolling. 9 1. Petitioner’s Claims. 10 Petitioner claims his untimely petition is not barred because his “mental disability” 11 (alleged illiteracy and “IQ of 60”) “prevented him from fil[ing] any document in court.” 12 (Doc. 1 at 12). In support, Petitioner cites the letter from Dr. DeLong (doc. 14 at 38–40),8 13 documents from pre-trial competency proceedings (doc. 14 at 41–50; doc. 14-1 at 1–11), 14 and the transcript from his sentencing (doc. 14-1 at 13–33). (Doc. 14 at 8). Each is 15 discussed in turn below. 16 In his August 22, 2012 letter to Petitioner’s attorney, Dr. DeLong summarized his 17 findings and conclusions regarding Petitioner’s competency based on his examination of 18 Petitioner that same day. (Doc. 14, Ex. B, at 38–40). Based on results from tests 19 administered during the examination, Dr. DeLong opined that Petitioner “[was] illiterate 20 and likely function[ed] well below the norm in terms of general intelligence and adaptive 21 behavior.” (Id. at 39). As such, Dr. DeLong stated Petitioner would “not be able to read 22 and comprehend court materials without specialized assistance” and “that someone will 23 have to read the material to him and also assist him with explanation to insure [sic] 24 comprehension.” (Id.). Nonetheless, Dr. DeLong found Petitioner had “sufficient 25 understanding to cooperate with counsel and make informed decisions with regard to his 26 case” and “a rational understanding of the waiver of rights associated with a plea bargain.” 27 (Id.). He concluded Petitioner did not have “any impediment to competence other than that 28 8 See Section II(C)(1), supra. 1 imposed by illiteracy and limited intellect/possible cognitive disorder.” (Id.). 2 On August 29, 2013, defense counsel moved for a mental health evaluation of 3 Petitioner pursuant to Ariz. R. Crim. P. 11.9 (Doc. 14, Ex. H, at 42–44). The trial court 4 granted the motion and appointed Drs. Lawrence Allen and Jason Frizzell to conduct the 5 evaluation. (Doc. 14, Ex. I, at 46–47; Doc. 14, Ex. J, at 49–50). Petitioner and the State 6 stipulated to the use of their reports, which were ultimately sealed, to determine Petitioner’s 7 competency. (Doc. 14-1, Ex. M, at 9; Doc. 14-1, Ex. N, at 11). These reports are not in the 8 record before the Court.10 9 At sentencing on March 28, 2014, defense counsel argued that Petitioner should be 10 given a 25 to life sentence rather than a natural life sentence, in part, because of his “very 11 limited intellectual functioning,” citing his placement in special education classes as a child 12 and low scores on basic learning tests.11 (Doc. 14-1, Ex. O, at 27–28). However, counsel 13 noted, “admittedly, [Petitioner] gave less than a full effort in some testing procedures.” (Id. 14 at 28). The sentencing judge expressly considered Petitioner’s “limited mental function” 15 as a mitigating factor and, “based on the totality of the circumstances,” concluded a life, 16 rather than natural life, sentence was appropriate. (Id. at 30–31). 17 2. Legal Standard. 18 Without more, “[l]ow literacy levels, lack of legal knowledge, and need for some 19 assistance to prepare a habeas petition are not extraordinary circumstances to warrant 20 equitable tolling of an untimely habeas petition.” Baker v. Cal. Dep’t. of Corr., 484 F. 21 App’x 130, 131 (9th Cir. 2012); see Dunnings v. Shinn, No. CV-19-03286-PHX-DGC 22 23 9 “At any time after an information is filed or an indictment is returned in superior court or a misdemeanor complaint is filed, the court may, on motion or on its own, order a 24 defendant's examination to determine whether the defendant is competent to stand trial.” Ariz. R. Crim. P. 11.2(a)(1). 25 10 These reports and other documents from Petitioner’s competency proceeding are 26 the subject of his pending discovery motion, which will be addressed later in the Report. 11 Counsel also argued the “conduct of [the victim] on the day of the murder” was an 27 additional mitigating circumstance, noting the victim had cut Petitioner’s face with a knife 28 during the fight that ultimately led to his murder and that a toxicology report showed the victim had methamphetamine in his system. (Doc. 14-1, Ex. O, at 29). 1 (DMF), 2020 WL 4220076, at *2 (D. Ariz. July 23, 2020); Trevizo v. Borders, No. 1:16– 2 cv–01845–DAD–SKO HC, 2018 WL 3017547, at *12 (E.D. Cal. June 14, 2018) (“[A] lack 3 of legal assistance or lack of adequate legal assistance is not grounds for equitable tolling, 4 because there is no right to legal assistance in post-conviction relief.”). To obtain equitable 5 tolling on the basis of a mental impairment or other cognitive limitation, a petitioner must 6 satisfy a two-prong test: 7 (1) First, a petitioner must show his mental impairment was an 8 “extraordinary circumstance” beyond his control by demonstrating the impairment was so severe that either 9 10 (a) petitioner was unable rationally or factually to personally understand the need to timely file, or 11 12 (b) petitioner’s mental state rendered him unable personally to prepare a habeas petition and effectuate its filing. 13 (2) Second, the petitioner must show diligence in pursuing the claims to the 14 extent he could understand them, but that the mental impairment made it 15 impossible to meet the filing deadline under the totality of the circumstances, including reasonably available access to assistance. 16 17 Bills v. Clark, 628 F.3d 1092, 1099–1100 (9th Cir. 2010) (citations omitted). “The ‘totality 18 of the circumstances’ inquiry in the second prong considers whether the petitioner’s 19 impairment was a but-for cause of any delay.” Id. at 1100; see also Milam v. Harrington, 20 953 F.3d 1128, 1132 (9th Cir. 2020) (“Equitable tolling for a mental impairment does not 21 require a literal impossibility, but instead only a showing that the mental impairment was 22 a but-for cause of any delay.” (cleaned up)). “With respect to the necessary diligence, the 23 petitioner must diligently seek assistance and exploit whatever assistance is reasonably 24 available.” Bills, 628 F.3d at 1101. “[E]ven in cases of debilitating impairment the 25 petitioner must still demonstrate diligence.” Yow Ming Yeh v. Martel, 751 F.3d 1075, 1078 26 (9th Cir. 2014); see Stancle v. Clay, 692 F.3d 948, 959 (9th Cir. 2012) (“[T]he petitioner 27 must show diligence in seeking assistance with what he could not do alone.”); Bills, 628 28 F.3d at 1100 (“The petitioner . . . always remains accountable for diligence in pursuing his 1 or her rights.”); see also Dunnings, 2020 WL 4220076, at *4 (“[E]ven if [petitioner] 2 satisfied the first prong of the Bills test, he is unable to show the second prong, that he 3 diligently pursued his claims to the extent that he could understand them.” (cleaned up)). 4 3. Analysis & Conclusion. 5 Petitioner is not entitled to equitable tolling on the basis of his alleged cognitive 6 limitations and illiteracy because, even if these limitations inhibited his ability to 7 understand the need to timely file his petition or to personally prepare it and effectuate its 8 filing, he has not shown the diligence necessary to obtain equitable tolling on that basis— 9 i.e., that his limitations were the but-for cause of the delay. See Bills, 628 F.3d at 1100. 10 Petitioner claims his “mental disability prevented him from fil[ing] any document 11 in court.” (Doc. 1 at 12 (emphasis added)). However, Petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed 12 at least three PCR petitions in Maricopa County Superior Court, a petition for review in 13 the Arizona Court of Appeals, and a petition for review in the Arizona Supreme Court. (See 14 Doc. 8-2, Ex. Q, at 15–18 ; Doc. 8-2, Ex. V, at 35–76; Doc. 8-2, Ex. X, at 81–150; Doc. 8- 15 2, Ex. Z, at 159; Doc. 14-1, Ex. Q, at 38–61). Moreover, Petitioner, proceeding pro se in 16 this Court, filed the present petition, a reply to Respondents’ answer to the petition, a 17 motion for an extension of time to file his reply, and the pending motion for discovery. 18 (Docs. 1, 9, 11, 14). Petitioner clarifies in his reply that he had assistance in preparing these 19 filings, asserting his first PCR notice was prepared by his appellate counsel and a prison 20 paralegal and “all other court filings” were prepared by “another inmate.” (Doc. 14 at 2, 4, 21 9). While the record shows Petitioner submitted multiple requests for assistance with his 22 preparing first PCR notice, absent from the record are any similar requests for assistance 23 with preparing a federal habeas petition. (See Doc. 14, Exs. C–E, at 18–36; see also Doc. 24 14, Ex. B, at 17 (letter from appellate counsel containing partially-filled PCR notice and 25 filing instructions)). The only action Petitioner alleges he took with respect to a federal 26 habeas petition is that he “attempted to contact” his appellate counsel “to discuss how he 27 can present his claim in federal court.” (Doc. 14 at 8). On July 8, 2017, Petitioner submitted 28 a request to make a legal call to counsel. (Doc. 14-1, Ex. P, at 35). However, Petitioner did 1 not state the purpose for the call in the request; he merely stated, “I need to make a legal 2 [sic] to Kerri Chamberlin.” (Id.). In response, counsel sent Petitioner “a box of legal 3 material,” which he states he received in August 2017. (Doc. 14 at 8). Critically, Petitioner 4 does not state what further action, if any, he took between receiving these materials in 5 August 2017 and November 28, 2017—the day his petition was due—much less why he 6 delayed even attempting to pursue his federal claims until July 2017 when his convictions 7 became final in November 2016. The absence of any explanation for Petitioner’s inaction 8 and delay during the limitations period, coupled with the absence of any unambiguous 9 requests for assistance with preparing a federal habeas petition (as he had done for his first 10 PCR notice), precludes a finding that Petitioner exercised the necessary diligence in 11 pursuing his federal rights. On this record, equitable tolling is unwarranted. See Yow Ming 12 Yeh, 751 F.3d at 1078 (“[E]ven in cases of debilitating impairment the petitioner must still 13 demonstrate diligence.”); Stancle, 692 F.3d at 959 (“[T]he petitioner must show diligence 14 in seeking assistance with what he could not do alone.”); Bills, 628 F.3d at 1101 (“[I]f 15 prison officials or even other prisoners were readily available to assist [the petitioner] in 16 filing his habeas petition but [the petitioner] refused to accept their assistance, a court could 17 conclude [the petitioner] may not have been diligent in pursuing his claims such that he is 18 entitled to equitable tolling.”); Canez v. Ryan, 25 F. Supp. 3d 1250, 1265 (D. Ariz. 2014) 19 (“Petitioner has not offered any set of facts in this case to establish a connection between 20 his mental impairment and his ability to file a timely federal habeas petition.”); Dunnings, 21 2020 WL 4220076, at *4 (denying equitable tolling where “the record [did] not reflect any 22 efforts made by [the petitioner] to timely file a habeas petition, let alone efforts constituting 23 reasonable diligence”); Tsosie v. Ryan, No. CV-16-08003-PCT-PGR (JZB), 2016 WL 24 6089830, at *4 (D. Ariz. Aug. 19, 2016) (denying equitable tolling where petitioner 25 “demonstrated no diligence in seeking or locating assistance to assist with the filing of the 26 Petition”), adopted by 2016 WL 6070961 (D. Ariz. Oct. 17, 2016); Brown v. Ryan, No. 27 CV-14-08229-PCT-DJH, 2015 WL 3990513, at *7, 9 (D. Ariz. June 30, 2015) (denying 28 equitable tolling where petitioner “[did] not explain what efforts he made to pursue his 1 claims” and “how his alleged mental health impairment prevented him from filing his 2 petition”).12 3 D. Petitioner does not show he is actually innocent and his double jeopardy 4 claims are waived. 5 Petitioner claims in his reply that he is actually innocent of the first-degree murder 6 charge based on “the single fact that [he] was acquitted of first-degree premeditated murder 7 and felony murder” in the first trial, asserting—without citation to any legal authority— 8 that the jury’s failure to reach a verdict constituted “an implied acquittal.” (Doc. 14 at 1, 9 9). Petitioner further claims that retrying him after the first trial resulted in a mistrial due 10 to the jury’s failure to reach a verdict violated the Double Jeopardy Clause. (Id.). 11 Under the “fundamental miscarriage of justice exception,” a petitioner may obtain 12 merits review of an otherwise procedurally barred constitutional claim by showing “actual 13 innocence.” Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390, 404, 416 (1993); see Poland v. Stewart, 117 14 F.3d 1094, 1106 (9th Cir. 1997) (“[The fundamental miscarriage of justice] exception is 15 limited to those who are actually innocent.”). “Actual innocence means factual innocence, 16 not mere legal insufficiency.” Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614, 615 (1998). “[T]he 17 petitioner must ‘go beyond demonstrating doubt about his guilt, and must affirmatively 18 prove that he is probably innocent.’” Jones v. Taylor, 763 F.3d 1242, 1246 (9th Cir. 2014) 19 (citations omitted). To establish a “credible” claim of actual innocence, a petitioner must 20 present “new reliable evidence” and “show that it is more likely than not that no reasonable 21 juror would have convicted him in the light of the new evidence.” Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 22 298, 324, 327 (1995); see Jones, 763 F.3d at 1247 (“In order to pass through the Schlup 23 actual innocence gateway, a petitioner must demonstrate that in light of new evidence, it is 24 more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have found the petitioner guilty beyond

25 12 The Court notes defense counsel’s statement at sentencing—that Petitioner “gave 26 less than a full effort in some testing procedures” (doc. 14-1, Ex. O, at 28)—could provide an additional or alternative basis for denying equitable tolling. See, e.g., Brown, 2015 WL 27 3990513, at *7 (denying equitable tolling where a psychologist noted petitioner “made an 28 ‘unsophisticated attempt to appear mentally ill,’ and his ‘profile appeared to be characteristic of individuals who are feigning a mental disorder . . .’”). 1 a reasonable doubt.” (cleaned up)). 2 Petitioner has not shown he is actually innocent. Petitioner’s claim fails at the outset 3 for his failure to proffer any new evidence in support of it. See Schlup, 513 U.S. at 324; 4 Thomas v. Goldsmith, 979 F.2d 746, 750 (9th Cir. 1992) (“[B]are allegations, 5 unsupplemented by evidence, do not tend to establish . . . actual innocence sufficiently for 6 the court to ignore [a procedural bar to merits review].”); Pratt v. Filson, 705 F. App’x 7 523, 525 (9th Cir. 2017) (“[Petitioner] has produced no new evidence whatsoever. He 8 merely argues that he is not guilty because the facts of the crime . . . do not support a finding 9 that he [committed the crime]. This is a legal argument, not evidence. The actual innocence 10 gateway is therefore closed to [petitioner] on this conviction.”); Colvin v. United States, 11 181 F. Supp. 2d 1050, 1054 (C.D. Cal. 2001) (“[T]he claim of actual innocence must be 12 based solely on reliable evidence not presented at trial.”). Moreover, Petitioner’s argument 13 in support of his claim is without any basis in law or fact. Contrary to Petitioner’s assertion, 14 he was not “acquitted” of anything during the first trial. The jury simply failed to reach a 15 verdict one way or the other, which resulted in a mistrial. (See Doc. 14, Ex. A, at 13–15; 16 Doc. 8-1, Ex. B, at 7–9). That does not mean he was acquitted—implicitly or otherwise. 17 His claim of actual innocence, which is premised solely on the “single fact” of the jury’s 18 failure to reach a verdict in the first trial, fails. Accordingly, Petitioner fails to show review 19 of his claims is necessary to prevent a fundamental miscarriage of justice. 20 In addition to the reasons above, Petitioner is not entitled to review of his double 21 jeopardy claims because he did not present them in his petition (see doc. 1), asserting them 22 only in his reply. “The district court need not consider arguments raised for the first time 23 in a reply brief.” Zamani v. Carnes, 491 F.3d 990, 997 (9th Cir. 2007); see Delgadillo v. 24 Woodford, 527 F.3d 919, 930 n.4 (9th Cir. 2008) (“Arguments raised for the first time in 25 petitioner’s reply brief are deemed waived.”); Cacoperdo v. Demosthenes, 37 F.3d 504, 26 507 (9th Cir. 1994) (“A Traverse is not the proper pleading to raise additional grounds for 27 relief.”); see also Rule 2(c)(1), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. § 2254 28 (stating that a habeas petition must “specify all the grounds for relief available to the 1 petitioner” (emphasis added)). 2 E. Petitioner’s Motion for Order to Produce State Court’s Record and 3 Transcripts is denied. 4 On August 27, 2021, Petitioner moved the Court to order Respondents to produce 5 documents from his Rule 11 competency proceeding. (Doc. 11). Specifically, Petitioner 6 seeks: (1) “court record and transcripts of Hearing/Motion/Rule 11 exam” dated September 7 10, 2013; (2) “court record and transcripts of mental exam expert appointed” dated 8 September 25, 2013; (3) “stipulation for determination of competency” dated December 9 17, 2013; (4) the “original sealed” reports of Drs. Allen and Frizzell; and (5) “court record 10 and transcripts of mental exam/Defendant competency” dated December 17, 2013. (Id. at 11 2). Respondents argued the motion should be denied because Petitioner “has not argued 12 that he does not have access to his own mental health and trial records,” “has not shown 13 that an order from this Court is necessary to compel production of his own records,” and 14 “does not specify what in these documents would support excusing his untimeliness— 15 especially given that these proceedings led to him being found competent and able to assist 16 his counsel in his defense.” (Doc. 13). 17 As explained above, the extent of Petitioner’s mental impairment is immaterial to 18 the Court’s equitable tolling analysis due to his lack of diligence. The Court, therefore, 19 finds no good cause to expand the record to include additional evidence regarding 20 Plaintiff’s mental impairment because such evidence, even if sufficiently probative of a 21 qualifying mental impairment, would be inconsequential to the Court’s findings with 22 regards to equitable tolling. See Rule 6(a), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. 23 § 2254 (“A judge may, for good cause, authorize a party to conduct discovery under the 24 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and may limit the extent of discovery.”); Orthel v. Yates, 25 795 F.3d 935, 939–40 (9th Cir. 2015) (“Where the record is amply developed, and where 26 it indicates that the petitioner’s mental incompetence was not so severe as to cause the 27 untimely filing of his habeas petition, a district court is not obligated to hold evidentiary 28 hearings to further develop the factual record, notwithstanding a petitioner’s allegations of 1 mental incompetence.” (citation omitted)); see also Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899, 904 2 (“A habeas petitioner, unlike the usual civil litigant in federal court, is not entitled to 3 discovery as a matter of ordinary course.”). Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion for discovery 4 is denied. 5 VI. CONCLUSION 6 An evidentiary hearing is not necessary as the record is sufficiently developed for 7 resolution of the petition, including whether equitable tolling is warranted on the basis of 8 any mental impairment. See Clark v. Chappell, 936 F.3d 944, 967 (9th Cir. 2019); Orthel, 9 795 F.3d at 939–40. As discussed in this Report, Petitioner’s habeas petition is untimely 10 and not entitled to equitable tolling. Accordingly, the Court will recommend that the 11 petition be denied and dismissed with prejudice. 12 VII. CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 13 “The district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a 14 final order adverse to the applicant.” Rule 11(a), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, 28 15 U.S.C. § 2254. A certificate of appealability may issue “only if the applicant has made a 16 substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right,” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), “by 17 demonstrating that jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s resolution of his 18 constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to 19 deserve encouragement to proceed further,” Miller–El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 20 (2003). Petitioner has not made the requisite showing here. Accordingly, the Court will 21 recommend that a certificate of appealability be denied. 22 IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Order to Produce State Court’s 23 Record and Transcripts (doc. 11) is denied. 24 IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (doc. 1) be 25 denied and dismissed with prejudice. 26 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that a certificate of appealability be denied. 27 This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth 28 Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1) should not be filed until entry of the District Court’s judgment. The parties shall have 14 days || from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within which to file specific || written objections with the Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6, 72. 4|| Thereafter, the parties have 14 days within which to file a response to the objections. 5 Failure to file timely objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and 6 || Recommendation may result in the acceptance of the Report and Recommendation by the District Court without further review. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, || 1121 (th Cir. 2003). Failure to file timely objections to any factual determinations of the || Magistrate Judge may be considered a waiver of a party’s right to appellate review of the || findings of fact in an order or judgment entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge’s 11 || recommendation. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. 12 Dated this 11th day of March, 2022. 13 14 Wr eted Y- PMereis □□ Is United States Macistrate Tudae 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-16-