1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
9 William Craig Miller, No. CV-21-00992-PHX-ROS
10 Petitioner, DEATH PENALTY CASE
11 v. ORDER
12 David Shinn, et al.,
13 Respondents. 14 15 Petitioner William Miller, an Arizona death row inmate seeking habeas relief, has 16 filed the following motions: a motion for leave to file a redacted amended habeas petition 17 that exceeds the District’s limit of 200 pages (Doc. 46); a motion to file under seal an 18 unredacted amended petition (Doc. 48); and a motion to file under seal an unredacted notice 19 of request for evidentiary development (Doc. 51). Miller has also lodged the following 20 documents: a proposed redacted amended petition (Doc. 47); a proposed unredacted 21 amended petition (Doc. 49); and a proposed unredacted notice of request for evidentiary 22 development (Doc. 52). Respondents oppose Miller’s request to file an overlong petition. 23 (Doc. 53.) 24 I. Background 25 In 2011 a Maricopa County jury convicted Miller of five counts of first-degree 26 murder for the 2006 shooting deaths of Steven Duffy and Duffy’s girlfriend, brother, and 27 children. See State v. Miller, 234 Ariz. 31, 36, 316 P.3d 1219, 1224 (2013). Duffy was 28 Miller’s employee and a co-defendant in a pending arson case. Id. Miller was indicted for 1 arson and fraud after Duffy cooperated with the police and admitted that he and Miller had 2 burned down Miller’s home. Id. 3 Miller blamed Duffy for the indictment and tried to recruit four different men to kill 4 him. Id. Duffy and his family were later found shot to death in their home with weapons 5 linked to Miller. Id. 6 Miller was sentenced to death for each murder. Id. The jury found four aggravating 7 circumstances, including the young age of one of the victims (10) and witness elimination, 8 and determined that the mitigating circumstances were not sufficient to warrant leniency. 9 Id. The convictions and sentences were affirmed on appeal. Id. Miller’s subsequent efforts 10 to obtain post-conviction relief (“PCR”) in state court were ultimately unsuccessful. State 11 v. Miller, 251 Ariz. 99, 485 P.3d 554 (2021). 12 On June 8, 2021, Miller filed a notice of intent to seek habeas corpus relief in this 13 Court. (Doc. 1.) He filed his initial habeas petition on April 11, 2022. (Doc. 32.) The Court 14 denied Miller’s request to exceed the page limit for that filing because he failed to show 15 good cause for the request. (Doc. 31.) The Court subsequently granted Miller’s request to 16 file a petition that exceeded the limit by one page and to file an unredacted petition under 17 seal. (Doc. 38.) 18 II. Analysis 19 A. Motion to exceed page limit 20 Rule 3.5(b) of Local Rules of Civil Procedure imposes a 200-page limit on capital 21 habeas corpus petitions. The Rule provides that the Court may grant leave to exceed the 22 page limit if a party demonstrates “good cause,” files a motion to exceed on or before the 23 operative deadline, and attaches a copy of the proposed filing with the motion. LRCiv 24 3.5(b). 25 Miller’s lodged proposed petition is 244 pages long. As good cause to exceed the 26 200-page limit, Miller first cites the Court’s order directing him to “raise in his first petition 27 all known claims of constitutional error or deprivation” and to “set[] forth the facts 28 supporting each ground for habeas relief.” (Doc. 5 at 3) (quotation marks omitted). The 1 Court previously rejected Miller’s argument that the duty of counsel to thoroughly raise 2 habeas claims is a “case specific” grounds for suspending the page limitation of Rule 3 3.5(b). (Doc. 31 at 2.) 4 Miller explains that the “primary reason” for his request to exceed the page limits 5 “is that undersigned counsel’s subsequent investigation has produced new evidence that 6 must also be addressed in his amended petition, necessitating additional pages.” (Doc. 46 7 at 2.) Miller contends that information discovered since the filing of his initial petition, 8 including consultation with experts and witness interviews, provides good cause for the 9 additional pages. 10 Miller also argues that “[u]nique features” of the state court record in his case make 11 compliance with the 200-page limit “impractical.” (Id. at 3.) The unique features he refers 12 to are the length of the briefing on direct appeal and during PCR proceedings and the 13 “factual breadth” of the case, which consists of “literally three cases in one”—the murder 14 case along with Miller’s arson and solicitation cases. (Id. at 3, 4.) According to Miller, 15 police disclosures in the murder and arson cases total more than 6000 pages, and PCR 16 counsel developed a factual record consisting of “thousands of pages.” (Id. at 4.) The record 17 in Miller’s case included a pretrial period of more than five years and a trial that lasted 18 nearly two months. (Doc. 54 at 4.) These circumstances are specific to Miller’s case and 19 satisfy the good cause standard. 20 This determination is consistent with rulings in other cases interpreting Rule 3.5(b). 21 In Payne v. Shinn, for example, the court found good cause for the petitioner’s request to 22 exceed the page limit by 44 pages based on “the volume and complexity” of the case. 23 Payne, No. CV-20-0459-TUC-JAS, 2022 WL 1224319, at *1 (D. Ariz. Apr. 26, 2022); see 24 Forde v. Shinn, No. CV-21-0098-TUC-SHR, Doc. 40 (D. Ariz. June 9, 2022) (finding good 25 cause for request to exceed page limits by 43 pages based on volume and complexity of 26 the case and habeas counsel’s duty to raise all claims and facts in support). The court in 27 Payne specifically noted that the guilt phase of the petitioner’s trial lasted 17 days and that 28 the appellate and postconviction briefing consisted of “dozens of issues across 1 approximately 300 pages.” Id. The length of Miller’s murder trial and the extent of the state 2 court briefing are comparable to those in Payne’s case, while the entire extent of the record 3 in Miller’s case, which includes the arson case, exceeds the record in Payne. 4 Respondents counter that Miller cannot show good cause to exceed the page limit 5 because the new evidence he has developed is inadmissible under Pinholster and Ramirez.1 6 (Doc. 52 at 2.) The Court agrees with Miller, however, that such a determination cannot be 7 made at this point, and that neither Pinholster nor Ramirez imposes a complete ban on a 8 habeas court’s consideration of new evidence. (See Doc. 54 at 2–3.) 9 Miller’s request to exceed the page limit is therefore granted. 10 B. Motions to Seal 11 Miller moves to file under seal unredacted versions of his amended habeas petition 12 (Doc. 48) and his notice of request for evidentiary development (Doc. 51). With respect to 13 the unredacted amended petition, Miller indicates that the state court sealed a number of 14 items in Miller’s trial and PCR proceedings. (Doc. 48 at 1.) The items remain under seal. 15 (Id.) According to Miller, his unredacted petition “refers to and cites information” from 16 those sealed records, including Miller’s Rule 11 competency evaluations, a wiretap 17 affidavit, and a transcript from a hearing addressing defense counsel’s “impairments and 18 eventual removal from the case.” (Id.) Miller also states that petition contains “highly 19 sensitive details of allegations of underage sexual abuse by and against both parties and 20 non-parties to this litigation” and that “[i]n one allegation . . . against a non-party, the details 21 surrounding the allegation may result in their public identification.” (Id.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
9 William Craig Miller, No. CV-21-00992-PHX-ROS
10 Petitioner, DEATH PENALTY CASE
11 v. ORDER
12 David Shinn, et al.,
13 Respondents. 14 15 Petitioner William Miller, an Arizona death row inmate seeking habeas relief, has 16 filed the following motions: a motion for leave to file a redacted amended habeas petition 17 that exceeds the District’s limit of 200 pages (Doc. 46); a motion to file under seal an 18 unredacted amended petition (Doc. 48); and a motion to file under seal an unredacted notice 19 of request for evidentiary development (Doc. 51). Miller has also lodged the following 20 documents: a proposed redacted amended petition (Doc. 47); a proposed unredacted 21 amended petition (Doc. 49); and a proposed unredacted notice of request for evidentiary 22 development (Doc. 52). Respondents oppose Miller’s request to file an overlong petition. 23 (Doc. 53.) 24 I. Background 25 In 2011 a Maricopa County jury convicted Miller of five counts of first-degree 26 murder for the 2006 shooting deaths of Steven Duffy and Duffy’s girlfriend, brother, and 27 children. See State v. Miller, 234 Ariz. 31, 36, 316 P.3d 1219, 1224 (2013). Duffy was 28 Miller’s employee and a co-defendant in a pending arson case. Id. Miller was indicted for 1 arson and fraud after Duffy cooperated with the police and admitted that he and Miller had 2 burned down Miller’s home. Id. 3 Miller blamed Duffy for the indictment and tried to recruit four different men to kill 4 him. Id. Duffy and his family were later found shot to death in their home with weapons 5 linked to Miller. Id. 6 Miller was sentenced to death for each murder. Id. The jury found four aggravating 7 circumstances, including the young age of one of the victims (10) and witness elimination, 8 and determined that the mitigating circumstances were not sufficient to warrant leniency. 9 Id. The convictions and sentences were affirmed on appeal. Id. Miller’s subsequent efforts 10 to obtain post-conviction relief (“PCR”) in state court were ultimately unsuccessful. State 11 v. Miller, 251 Ariz. 99, 485 P.3d 554 (2021). 12 On June 8, 2021, Miller filed a notice of intent to seek habeas corpus relief in this 13 Court. (Doc. 1.) He filed his initial habeas petition on April 11, 2022. (Doc. 32.) The Court 14 denied Miller’s request to exceed the page limit for that filing because he failed to show 15 good cause for the request. (Doc. 31.) The Court subsequently granted Miller’s request to 16 file a petition that exceeded the limit by one page and to file an unredacted petition under 17 seal. (Doc. 38.) 18 II. Analysis 19 A. Motion to exceed page limit 20 Rule 3.5(b) of Local Rules of Civil Procedure imposes a 200-page limit on capital 21 habeas corpus petitions. The Rule provides that the Court may grant leave to exceed the 22 page limit if a party demonstrates “good cause,” files a motion to exceed on or before the 23 operative deadline, and attaches a copy of the proposed filing with the motion. LRCiv 24 3.5(b). 25 Miller’s lodged proposed petition is 244 pages long. As good cause to exceed the 26 200-page limit, Miller first cites the Court’s order directing him to “raise in his first petition 27 all known claims of constitutional error or deprivation” and to “set[] forth the facts 28 supporting each ground for habeas relief.” (Doc. 5 at 3) (quotation marks omitted). The 1 Court previously rejected Miller’s argument that the duty of counsel to thoroughly raise 2 habeas claims is a “case specific” grounds for suspending the page limitation of Rule 3 3.5(b). (Doc. 31 at 2.) 4 Miller explains that the “primary reason” for his request to exceed the page limits 5 “is that undersigned counsel’s subsequent investigation has produced new evidence that 6 must also be addressed in his amended petition, necessitating additional pages.” (Doc. 46 7 at 2.) Miller contends that information discovered since the filing of his initial petition, 8 including consultation with experts and witness interviews, provides good cause for the 9 additional pages. 10 Miller also argues that “[u]nique features” of the state court record in his case make 11 compliance with the 200-page limit “impractical.” (Id. at 3.) The unique features he refers 12 to are the length of the briefing on direct appeal and during PCR proceedings and the 13 “factual breadth” of the case, which consists of “literally three cases in one”—the murder 14 case along with Miller’s arson and solicitation cases. (Id. at 3, 4.) According to Miller, 15 police disclosures in the murder and arson cases total more than 6000 pages, and PCR 16 counsel developed a factual record consisting of “thousands of pages.” (Id. at 4.) The record 17 in Miller’s case included a pretrial period of more than five years and a trial that lasted 18 nearly two months. (Doc. 54 at 4.) These circumstances are specific to Miller’s case and 19 satisfy the good cause standard. 20 This determination is consistent with rulings in other cases interpreting Rule 3.5(b). 21 In Payne v. Shinn, for example, the court found good cause for the petitioner’s request to 22 exceed the page limit by 44 pages based on “the volume and complexity” of the case. 23 Payne, No. CV-20-0459-TUC-JAS, 2022 WL 1224319, at *1 (D. Ariz. Apr. 26, 2022); see 24 Forde v. Shinn, No. CV-21-0098-TUC-SHR, Doc. 40 (D. Ariz. June 9, 2022) (finding good 25 cause for request to exceed page limits by 43 pages based on volume and complexity of 26 the case and habeas counsel’s duty to raise all claims and facts in support). The court in 27 Payne specifically noted that the guilt phase of the petitioner’s trial lasted 17 days and that 28 the appellate and postconviction briefing consisted of “dozens of issues across 1 approximately 300 pages.” Id. The length of Miller’s murder trial and the extent of the state 2 court briefing are comparable to those in Payne’s case, while the entire extent of the record 3 in Miller’s case, which includes the arson case, exceeds the record in Payne. 4 Respondents counter that Miller cannot show good cause to exceed the page limit 5 because the new evidence he has developed is inadmissible under Pinholster and Ramirez.1 6 (Doc. 52 at 2.) The Court agrees with Miller, however, that such a determination cannot be 7 made at this point, and that neither Pinholster nor Ramirez imposes a complete ban on a 8 habeas court’s consideration of new evidence. (See Doc. 54 at 2–3.) 9 Miller’s request to exceed the page limit is therefore granted. 10 B. Motions to Seal 11 Miller moves to file under seal unredacted versions of his amended habeas petition 12 (Doc. 48) and his notice of request for evidentiary development (Doc. 51). With respect to 13 the unredacted amended petition, Miller indicates that the state court sealed a number of 14 items in Miller’s trial and PCR proceedings. (Doc. 48 at 1.) The items remain under seal. 15 (Id.) According to Miller, his unredacted petition “refers to and cites information” from 16 those sealed records, including Miller’s Rule 11 competency evaluations, a wiretap 17 affidavit, and a transcript from a hearing addressing defense counsel’s “impairments and 18 eventual removal from the case.” (Id.) Miller also states that petition contains “highly 19 sensitive details of allegations of underage sexual abuse by and against both parties and 20 non-parties to this litigation” and that “[i]n one allegation . . . against a non-party, the details 21 surrounding the allegation may result in their public identification.” (Id. at 2.) 22 With respect to the unredacted notice of request for evidentiary development, and 23 one exhibit thereto, Miller again indicates that the documents contain “highly sensitive 24
25 1 Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170, 181 (2011), held that “review under 28 U.S.C. § 26 2254(d)(1) is limited to the record before the state court that adjudicated the claim on the merits.” Shinn v. Ramirez, 142 S. Ct. 1717, 1734 (2022), held that a federal habeas court 27 may not conduct an evidentiary hearing or otherwise consider evidence beyond the state- 28 court record based on ineffective assistance of state postconviction counsel” unless the prisoner can satisfy 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2)’s stringent requirements under AEDPA.” 1 details of allegations of sexual abuse by and against both parties and non-parties to this 2 litigation.” (Doc. 51 at 2.) 3 Respondents did not respond to Millers’ requests to file the unredacted documents 4 under seal. 5 Although there is “a strong presumption in favor of access to court records,” the 6 presumption can be overridden where there are “compelling reasons” to do so. Foltz v. 7 State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). 8 The compelling reasons standard applies even if the motion, or its attachments, were 9 previously filed under seal. Id. at 1136. 10 As the Court previously determined (Doc. 38), there are compelling reasons to 11 maintain under seal the limited portions of the record identified by Miller in his unredacted 12 amended habeas petition and unredacted notice of request for evidentiary development. 13 See, e.g., Tucker v. Shinn, No. CV-21-0098-PHX-DJH, Doc. 78 (D. Ariz. February 4, 2020) 14 (finding compelling reasons to seal, for privacy and other reasons, “police department 15 records, mental health records, juvenile records, and declarations from multiple witnesses 16 regarding two individuals Petitioner alleges his trial counsel should have investigated to 17 support a potential third-party defense”). 18 III. Conclusion 19 Miller has shown good cause to exceed the 200 page limit of Rule 3.5(b). He has 20 shown compelling reasons to file under seal his unredacted amended habeas petition and 21 his unredacted notice of request for evidentiary development and attached exhibit. 22 Accordingly, 23 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED granting Miller’s motion for leave to file a redacted 24 amended habeas petition. (Doc. 46.) The Clerk shall file the proposed redacted amended 25 habeas petition lodged with Miller’s motion (lodged at Doc. 47). 26 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondents may file a response to the 27 amended petition that exceeds the 200-page limit by 44 pages. See LRCiv 3.5(b). 28 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Miller’s motion to file under seal an 2|| unredacted amended habeas petition. (Doc. 48.) The Clerk shall file the proposed 3 || unredacted amended habeas petition lodged with Miller’s motion (lodged at Doc. 49). 4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Miller’s motion to file under seal an 5 || unredacted notice of request for evidentiary development. (Doc. 51). The Clerk shall file 6|| under seal Miller’s proposed unredacted notice of request for evidentiary development and 7|| the attached exhibit (lodged at Doc. 52). 8 Dated this 21st day of September, 2022. 9 fo .
Honorable Roslyn ©. Silver 2 Senior United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
-6-