Marks v. Johnson

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: May 27, 2022
• Docket: 2:17-cv-01413
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4

5 JOHN JOEY MARKS, Case No. 2:17-cv-01413-JCM-BNW 6 Petitioner, 7 ORDER v. 8

9 CALVIN JOHNSON, et al.,

10 Respondents.

11 12 13 This action is a petition for writ of habeas corpus by John Joey Marks, an 14 individual incarcerated at Nevada’s High Desert State Prison. Marks is represented by 15 appointed counsel. Respondents have filed an answer (ECF No. 70) and Marks has 16 filed a reply (ECF No. 72), and the case is ripe for resolution of the merits of Marks’s 17 claims. 18 On May 23, 2022, the United States Supreme Court decided Shinn v. Ramirez, 19 ___ U.S. ___, 2022 WL 1611786 (May 23, 2022). The Court determines that Shinn may 20 affect the Court’s consideration of evidence filed by Marks in support of his petition in 21 this case, but not presented in state court. Such evidence may include, but may not be 22 limited to, the following: the report of a neuropsychological evaluation of Marks 23 conducted on November 22, 2017, by Sharon Jones-Forrester, PhD (Exh. 57 (ECF No. 24 22-14) (filed under seal)); a February 8, 2018, declaration of Marks’s sister, Helen 25 Marks (Exh. 58 (ECF No. 21-11)); medical/psychological records and court records from 26 proceedings prior to the events that gave rise to this case (Exhs. 39, 40, 41, 42, 43 44, 27 45, 46, 47, 48, 49 (ECF Nos. 21 and 22) (ECF No. 22 filed under seal)); and other 1 || (ECF Nos. 21 and 22) (exhibits at ECF No. 22 filed under seal)). It appears that Marks 2 || relies upon such evidence both in his attempt to show cause and prejudice relative to 3 || the procedural default of claims, under Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (2012), and in 4 || support of his claims on their merits. The Court will grant the parties time to supplement 5 || their answer and reply to address the effect of Shinn. 6 IT IS THEREFORE HEREBY ORDERED that Respondents will have 30 days 7 || from the date of this order to file a supplement to their answer, addressing the question 8 || of the effect of Shinn in this case. Petitioner will then have 30 days to supplement his 9 || reply to address the same question. The parties are granted leave to address only this 10 || specified issue in their supplemental answer and reply. 11 12 DATED THIS 27th day of May , 2022. 13 Pits OC. Malan 15 JAMES C.MAHAN 16 Uit!FED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28