Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_97-cv-01554/USCOURTS-azd-2_97-cv-01554-0/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

 “Dkt.” refers to documents in this Court’s file.

2

 Due to an error by the Clerk’s office, judgment in this matter was not actually

entered until July 5, 2005, several months after the Court’s final order. (See dkts. 156, 157.)

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Roger Mark Scott, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Dora B. Schriro, et al.,

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-97-1554-PHX-PGR

DEATH PENALTY CASE

ORDER RE: CERTIFICATE OF 

 APPEALABILITY

In orders filed March 31 and June 6, 2000, the Court found most of Petitioner’s claims

for habeas relief procedurally barred. (Dkts. 119, 126.)1

 On March 3, 2005, following

additional briefing, the Court denied relief on the merits of Petitioner’s remaining claim.2

(Dkt. 148.) On June 3, 2005, the Court denied a motion for reconsideration. (Dkt. 154.)

Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal on July 1, 2005. (Dkt. 161.) Before the Court is

Petitioner’s Application for Certificate of Appealability (“COA”) and two requests to

supplement the COA application. (Dkts. 163, 164, 167.) Respondents have filed no

responses to either the original COA motion or the requests to supplement.

Petitioner seeks to supplement his COA application with statements made by two

Arizona Assistant Attorneys General in testimony before the United States Senate’s Judiciary

Committee concerning delay in federal habeas corpus cases, Arizona’s attempts to “opt-in”

Case 2:97-cv-01554-PGR Document 168 Filed 10/04/05 Page 1 of 4
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

 The case is Canion v. Cole, 210 Ariz. 598, 115 P.3d 1261 (2005). In Canion, the

Arizona Supreme Court rejected the contention that pre-petition discovery was necessary so

that a petitioner could raise “every known ground” in his petition because Rule 32.6(d)

permits amendment “upon a showing of good cause” and noting that the rule “adopt[ed] a

liberal policy toward amendment of PCR pleadings.” 115 P.3d at 1264 (citing State v.

Rogers, 113 Ariz. 6, 8, 545 P.2d 930, 932 (1976) (“Rule 32.6(d) adopts a liberal policy

toward amendments of post-conviction pleadings at all stages prior to entry of judgment.”)

(emphasis added)). Canion’s relevance to this case is particularly doubtful because Petitioner

moved for leave to amend his post-conviction petition after judgment had been entered, a fact

he acknowledged in the motion itself. (ROA 640 at 1-2.) 

4

 In his COA Application, Petitioner sometimes appears to conflate this standard into

a determination whether reasonable jurists would find various state court, rather than this

Court’s, rulings debatable. (See e.g., dkt. 163 at 11, 23, 30, 31, 32, 33, 36, 37.)

- 2 -

under the AEDPA, and proposed legislation to modify federal habeas corpus. (Dkt. 164.)

The Court will deny this request because these statements do not relate to, or have any

bearing on, this case. 

In the other request, Petitioner asks the Court to consider a recent state court decision

addressing Rule 32.6(d) of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, which he asserts is

relevant to whether that rule, which provides that a state post-conviction petition may be

amended prior to entry of judgment for good cause, is consistently followed.3

 (Dkt. 167.)

The Court will grant this request to the extent that it has reviewed the case and considered

its possible relevance to the issuance of a COA. The request is otherwise denied.

Rule 22(b) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure provides that when an appeal

is taken by a petitioner, the district judge who rendered the judgment “shall” either issue a

certificate of appealability (“COA”) or state the reasons why such a certificate should not

issue. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), a COA may issue only when the petitioner “has

made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” This showing can be

established by demonstrating that “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that

matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner”4

 or that the

issues were “adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Slack v. McDaniel,

Case 2:97-cv-01554-PGR Document 168 Filed 10/04/05 Page 2 of 4
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

 Petitioner asserts that the denial of a COA by this Court as to an issue precludes him

from appealing the issue. However, the Court of Appeals has the authority to consider issues

outside the scope of the COA issued by this Court. See Nardi v. Stewart, 354 F.3d 1134,

1138 (9th Cir. 2004). Further, Ninth Circuit Rule 22-1(e) provides that a petitioner may

address uncertified issues in an opening appellate brief, consistent with page limitations, and

that such briefing is construed by the Court of Appeals as a motion to expand the COA.

- 3 -

529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (citing Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 & n.4 (1983)). For

procedural rulings, a COA will issue only if reasonable jurists could debate (1) whether the

petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right, and (2) whether the court’s

procedural ruling was correct.5

 Id.

The Court finds that jurists of reason could debate the resolution of the following

issue: Whether the exhausted portion of Claim 1, alleging a Sixth Amendment violation

based on trial counsel’s failure to argue as mitigation the victim’s father’s recommendation

for leniency, was wrongly decided on the merits. The Court denies a COA as to all other

issues for the reasons set forth in its Orders filed on March 31 and June 6, 2000 and August

30, 2001 in which the Court addressed Petitioner’s arguments regarding evidentiary

development, exhaustion, and procedural default. (Dkts. 119, 126, 144.) The Court also

denies a COA as to other Orders filed on April 15, June 3, July 29, and August 1, 2005.

(Dkts. 151, 153, 154, 165, 166.) 

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s request to supplement his application for a

certificate of appealability with two statements of Arizona Assistant Attorneys General is

DENIED. (Dkt. 164.)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s request to supplement his application

for certificate of appealability with case citation is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN

PART. The request is GRANTED to the extent that the Court has reviewed the case and

considered its possible relevance to the issuance of a COA. The request is otherwise

DENIED. (Dkt. 167.)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Request for a Certificate of

Case 2:97-cv-01554-PGR Document 168 Filed 10/04/05 Page 3 of 4
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 -

Appealability (dkt. 163) is GRANTED IN PART as to the following issue:

Whether the exhausted portion of Claim 1, alleging a Sixth Amendment

violation based on trial counsel’s failure to argue as mitigation the victim’s

father’s recommendation for leniency, was wrongly decided on the merits.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Application for Certificate of

Appealability is otherwise DENIED. (Dkt. 163.) 

DATED this 3rd day of October, 2005.

Case 2:97-cv-01554-PGR Document 168 Filed 10/04/05 Page 4 of 4