Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_94-cv-01665/USCOURTS-caed-2_94-cv-01665-16/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 535
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Death Penalty
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Ptn for Writ of H/C - Stay of Execution

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTONIO ESPINOZA,

Petitioner,

v.

WARDEN, San Quentin State Prison,

Respondent.

No. 2:94-cv-1665 JAM DB

DEATH PENALTY CASE

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Petitioner is a condemned state prisoner proceeding with a petition for a writ of habeas 

corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On June 15, 2018, the undersigned heard argument on 

petitioner’s motions to amend the petition and to stay this action. Assistant Federal Defenders 

Lissa Gardner and Kelly Culshaw appeared for petitioner. Deputy Attorney General Sean McCoy 

appeared for respondent. After hearing the arguments of counsel, and good cause appearing, the 

undersigned recommends below that petitioner’s motions be granted.

BACKGROUND

Petitioner initiated this action in 1994 to challenge 1982 convictions for first degree 

murder and rape and a death sentence. Because this case has a long history in both this court and 

the California Supreme Court, the court sets out below only the case history relevant to the 

present motions.

////

Case 2:94-cv-01665-KJM-SCR Document 288 Filed 06/21/18 Page 1 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Petitioner filed his first habeas petition here on July 15, 1996. (ECF No. 83.) Because the 

petition contained some unexhausted claims, the case was stayed from March 1997 to May 1999 

to permit petitioner to exhaust those claims in the California Supreme Court. (See ECF Nos. 123, 

126.) On September 30, 1999, petitioner filed an amended petition. (ECF No. 140.) In early 

2000, respondent filed an answer and a supplemental answer. (ECF Nos. 144, 148.) In April 

2002, petitioner filed a motion for an evidentiary hearing. (ECF No. 190.) 

In 2003, petitioner filed another habeas petition in the California Supreme Court. Relying 

on a 2002 decision of the United States Supreme Court in Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, 

petitioner alleged, among other things, that his execution would violate the Eighth Amendment 

because he is intellectually disabled. The California Supreme Court denied that petition in June 

2005.1In March 2006, petitioner filed a second amended petition here. (ECF No. 214.) 

Respondent filed an answer in July 2006. (ECF No. 226.) Those are, currently, the operative 

pleadings. 

In October 2006, petitioner filed a renewed motion for an evidentiary hearing. (ECF No. 

228.) In 2011, before any ruling on the motions for evidentiary hearing, the court ordered the 

parties to brief the effects on this case of the United States Supreme Court’s 2011 decision in 

Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170. 

In February 2016, the court granted petitioner’s prior attorneys’ requests to withdraw and 

appointed the Office of the Federal Defender to represent petitioner in this action. (ECF No. 

261.) 

On February 27, 2018, petitioner filed a third state habeas petition with the California 

Supreme Court.2 He again alleges that petitioner has an intellectual disability, making him 

ineligible for execution under Atkins (the “Atkins claim”). In addition, petitioner claims that 

because he is permanently incompetent due to mental illness, he may not be executed under Ford 

v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399, 417, 421-22 (1986) (the “Ford claim”). Accompanying his state 

 

1 The docket for this case, no. S116824, is available at: http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov. 

2

It is case no. S247296. See n. 1, supra. 

Case 2:94-cv-01665-KJM-SCR Document 288 Filed 06/21/18 Page 2 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

petition is new evidence in the form of two expert declarations and documentary evidence. (See

ECF Nos. 280-1 to 280-7.) 

On May 9, 2018, petitioner moved to amend the federal petition to add evidence to his 

existing Atkins claim and to add the Ford claim he raised in the California Supreme Court. (ECF 

No. 280.) Also on May 9, petitioner moved to stay this case pending the California Supreme 

Court’s resolution of the pending state petition. (ECF No. 282.) Respondent does not oppose 

amending the petition to include the Atkins claim but opposes amendment to add the Ford claim. 

(ECF No. 285.) Respondent also does not oppose issuance of a stay to permit plaintiff to exhaust 

the Atkins claim. (ECF No. 284.) 

MOTION TO AMEND

I. Legal Standards

Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs amendment of pleadings in 

federal habeas corpus. 28 U.S.C. § 2242; Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644, 649 (2005). Leave to 

amend pleadings “shall be freely given when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). “[T]his 

policy is to be applied with extreme liberality.” Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Rose, 893 

F.2d 1074, 1079 (9th Cir.1990) (citing DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 186 (9th 

Cir.1987)). However, the Supreme Court has stated that a court may decline to grant leave for 

reasons that are apparent and stated on the record. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). 

Further, the court has “particularly broad” discretion where plaintiff has been granted leave to 

amend in the past. Chodos v. West Publ'g Co., Inc., 292 F.3d 992, 1003 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing 

Griggs v. Pace Am. Group, Inc., 170 F.3d 877, 879 (9th Cir. 1999)). 

The Ninth Circuit has interpreted the decision in Foman as identifying “four factors 

relevant to whether a motion for leave to amend the pleadings should be denied: undue delay, bad 

faith or dilatory motive, futility of amendment, and prejudice to the opposing party.” United 

States v. Webb, 655 F.2d 977, 980 (9th Cir. 1981). The factors do not carry equal weight. 

“[D]elay alone no matter how lengthy is an insufficient ground for denial of leave to amend.” Id. 

However, futility of an amendment can, standing alone, justify denial of a request to file an 

amended pleading. See Bonin v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 815, 845 (9th Cir. 1995) (“futility of an 

Case 2:94-cv-01665-KJM-SCR Document 288 Filed 06/21/18 Page 3 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

amendment can, by itself, justify the denial of a motion for leave to amend because the proffered 

amendments would be nothing more than an exercise in futility”); see also Novak v. United 

States, 795 F.3d 1012, 1020 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing Bonin, 59 F.3d at 845). To avoid the futility 

bar, petitioner must show relief on his new claims is at least possible. Miller v. Rykoff-Sexton, 

Inc., 845 F.2d 209, 214 (9th Cir. 1988) (amendment only futile if “no set of facts can be proved 

under the amendment . . . that would constitute a valid and sufficient claim”). 

“Prejudice to the opposing party is the most important factor.” Jackson v. Bank of 

Hawai‘i, 902 F.2d 1385, 1387 (9th Cir. 1990). “Absent prejudice, or a strong showing of any of 

the remaining Foman factors, there exists a presumption under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting 

leave to amend.” Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003).

II. Analysis

Respondent does not oppose petitioner’s motion to amend his Atkins claim to supplement 

it. However, respondent argues that the Ford claim is premature and amendment at this time is 

futile. While the court understands that the Ford claim is not ripe for decision under federal law, 

Panetti v. Quarterman, 551 U.S. 930, 943 (2007), respondent could identify no prejudice if the 

court permits amendment of the claim at this time. Further, the court is only permitting 

amendment of the petition. Resolution of the Ford claim, and, for that matter, any of petitioner’s 

other remaining claims, is not before the court at this time. Accordingly, the court will 

recommend the motion to amend be granted. However, as requested by petitioner, and 

unopposed by respondent, the court will further recommend that petitioner be permitted to wait 

until the California Supreme Court has ruled on his claims before filing an amended petition.

MOTION FOR STAY/ABEYANCE

The parties concur that a stay of these proceedings is necessary to permit the California 

Supreme Court to consider the new evidence petitioner has gathered in support of his Atkins

claim. Under Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 277-78 (2005), the court may stay a petition 

containing exhausted and unexhausted claims where: (1) petitioner shows good cause for his 

failure to exhaust the claims in state court previously, (2) at least one unexhausted claim is 

potentially meritorious, and (3) there is no indication the petitioner engaged in intentionally 

Case 2:94-cv-01665-KJM-SCR Document 288 Filed 06/21/18 Page 4 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

dilatory tactics. The second and third factors are easily met. Petitioner has presented significant 

new evidence in support of his Atkins claim. This is more than sufficient to show his claim is not 

“plainly meritless.” Dixon v. Baker, 847 F.3d 714, 722 (9th Cir. 2017). Nor is there any 

indication petitioner has been intentionally dilatory. Petitioner’s current counsel were appointed 

just two years ago. They have uncovered new evidence to support petitioner’s claim of 

intellectual disability and provided an extensive declaration from a mental health expert. (See

Exs. 1-61 to Mot. to Amend (ECF Nos. 280-2 to 280-6).) Respondent does not contend that 

petitioner has been dilatory. (See ECF No. 284 at 6.) 

The remaining Rhines factor is good cause. “Good cause” under Rhines is not clearly 

defined. The Supreme Court has explained that in order to promote the Anti-terrorism and 

Effective Death Penalty Act's (“AEDPA”) twin goals of encouraging the finality of state 

judgments and reducing delays in federal habeas review, “stay and abeyance should be available 

only in limited circumstances.” Rhines, 544 U.S. at 277. In 2014, the Ninth Circuit provided 

some clarification when it held that “[t]he good cause element is the equitable component of the 

Rhines test,” and that although “a bald assertion cannot amount to a showing of good cause, a 

reasonable excuse, supported by evidence to justify a petitioner's failure to exhaust, will.” Blake 

v. Baker, 745 F.3d 977, 982 (9th Cir. 2014). 

The instant case presents a somewhat unique situation. In 2005, when petitioner first 

raised his Atkins claim in the California Supreme Court, the court denied the claim but invited 

petitioner to return with additional information to meet the standards for proving an intellectual 

disability.3 Petitioner’s current attorneys have provided the California Supreme Court with new 

evidence, including the declaration of a neuropsychologist that petitioner meets the three 

diagnostic criteria for “intellectual disability” under Atkins: (1) significantly sub-average 

 

3 Specifically, the court stated: “The denial as to Claim I (Atkins v. Virginia (2002) 536 U.S. 

304) is without prejudice to filing a new petition and supporting documentation to comply with 

the requirements of In re Hawthorne (2005) 35 Cal.4th 40.” In Hawthorne, the California 

Supreme Court held that “[u]pon the submission of an appropriate declaration ‘by a qualified 

expert’ (§ 1376, subd. (b)(1)), this court will—as a general rule—then issue an order to show 

cause returnable in the superior court in which the original trial was held, with directions to hold a 

hearing on the question of the petitioner's mental retardation.” 35 Cal. 4th at 49. 

Case 2:94-cv-01665-KJM-SCR Document 288 Filed 06/21/18 Page 5 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6

intellectual functioning; (2) significant deficits in adaptive behavior; and (3) these deficits 

manifested before age 18. (See Excerpt from State Petition (ECF No. 280-1 at 2-3).) 

Both parties agree that the California Supreme Court should have the first opportunity to 

consider this new evidence. This court finds that three factors support a finding of good cause 

under Rhines: (1) the invitation of the California Supreme Court to petitioner to return with new 

evidence, (2) the relevance of the evidence recently uncovered by petitioner’s counsel, and (3) the 

concurrence of the parties that exhaustion of the amended Atkins claim is necessary. This action 

should be stayed to permit exhaustion of petitioner’s amended Atkins claim. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Petitioner’s motion to amend (ECF No. 280) be granted; 

2. Petitioner’s motion to stay this case and hold it in abeyance pending the California 

Supreme Court’s consideration of petitioner’s pending state habeas petition in case no. 

S247296 (ECF No. 282) be granted;

3. Petitioner be ordered to notify the court within twenty days of a final decision by the 

California Supreme Court on his state petition; and

4. The Clerk of the Court be directed to administratively close this case. 

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. The document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 

objections shall be filed and served within seven days after service of the objections. The parties

are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in waiver of the 

right to appeal the district court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: June 20, 2018

DB:9

DB/orders-capital/Espinoza stay.or

Case 2:94-cv-01665-KJM-SCR Document 288 Filed 06/21/18 Page 6 of 6