Forde v. Shinn

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: May 25, 2022
• Docket: 4:21-cv-00098
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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

9 Shawna Forde, No. CV-21-00098-TUC-SHR

10 Petitioner, DEATH PENALTY CASE

11 v. Order Denying Stay

12 David Shinn, et al.,

13 Respondents. 14 15 Pending before the Court is Petitioner Shawna Forde’s Motion to Stay Deadlines 16 Pending Cruz. (Doc. 35.) Forde, an Arizona death row inmate, filed a habeas corpus 17 petition on August 10, 2021. (Doc. 27.) Forde’s amended habeas corpus petition is due 18 June 8, 2022. (See Doc. 33.) Respondents have not yet filed an answer. Forde moves to 19 stay these proceedings in light of the Supreme Court’s grant of a writ of certiorari in Cruz 20 v. Arizona, 142 S. Ct. 1412 (U.S. Mar. 28, 2022) (Mem.). Respondents do not intend to 21 file a response but indicate their objection to the stay. (See Doc. 35.) Alternatively, they 22 have indicated if the Court grants the stay, it should stay only the deadlines and not the 23 case. (Id.) 24 DISCUSSION 25 “A district court has discretionary power to stay proceedings in its own court.” 26 Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1109 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing Landis v. North 27 American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)). “A trial court may, with propriety, find it is 28 efficient for its own docket and the fairest course for the parties to enter a stay of an action □□ before it, pending resolution of independent proceedings which bear upon the case.” Leyva v. Certified Grocers of California, 593 F.2d 857, 863 (9th Cir. 1979); see Lockyer, 398 || F.3d at 1110-11 (stay may be appropriate where the resolution of issues in the other 4|| proceeding would assist in resolving the proceeding sought to be stayed). 5 In Cruz, the United State Supreme Court will consider an issue relevant to the || potential procedural responses of Forde’s sentencing-stage habeas claims. The claims allege errors under Simmons v. South Carolina, 512 U.S. 154 (1994), which held that when 8 || future dangerousness is an issue in a capital sentencing determination, the defendant has a 9|| due process right to require his jury to be informed of his ineligibility for parole. In State v. Cruz, 251 Ariz. 203 (2021), the Arizona Supreme Court held that Lynch v. Arizona, 578 11 || U.S. 613 (2016) (per curiam), which applied Simmons to Arizona capital sentencing, did not represent a significant change in Arizona law under Arizona Rule of Criminal 13 || Procedure 32.1(g). The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider whether that holding “is an adequate and independent state-law ground for the judgment.” Cruz, 15}} 1428S. Ct. 1412. 16 The proceedings in the Supreme Court may or may not bear directly upon || sentencing-related issues in Forde’s petition, since the argument they apply turns on 18 || whether Respondents raise a procedural defense identical to the one in Cruz. Therefore, it 19 || would be premature to stay the case or the deadlines at this time. The Court will consider 20 || another motion after Respondents have filed their Answer. 21 Accordingly, 22 IT IS ORDERED denying Forde’s motion to stay the case. (Doc. 35.) 23 Dated this 25th day of May, 2022. 24 25 /}

Honorable Scott H, Rash ~_/ United States District Judge 28

_2-