Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-4_00-cv-04036/USCOURTS-arwd-4_00-cv-04036-8/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

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

TEXARKANA DIVISION

ANDREW SASSER PETITIONER

V. Case No. 4:00-cv-04036

WENDY KELLEY, Director,

Arkansas Department of Corrections RESPONDENT

ORDER

Currently before the Court are Petitioner Andrew Sasser’s motion for leave to file a third

amended petition (Doc. 185), Sasser’s motion for discovery (Doc. 188), and Sasser’s motion for

resolution of the intellectual disability issue prior to an evidentiary hearing (Doc. 196).

Respondent Wendy Kelley has filed a response in opposition to all motions (Docs. 190, 192, 197). 1

Sasser filed a reply in support of his motion for leave to amend (Doc. 191) and in support of his

motion for discovery (Doc. 193). 

The Eighth Circuit issued a mandate (Doc. 180) on March 20, 2014, affirming in part and

reversing in part the previous judgments of the Court and remanding to this Court for proceedings

consistent with the Eighth Circuit’s opinion. Specifically the Eighth Circuit held as follows: (1)

affirmed dismissal of Sasser's claims “with the exception of his Atkins claim and the four 2

ineffective-assistance claims meriting a hearing under Trevino;” (2) vacated both denial of relief 3

WendyKelleywas officiallynamed the Director of the Arkansas Department of Corrections 1

on January 13, 2015. As Ray Hobbs’s successor in office, Ms. Kelley is automatically substituted

as a party pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d). The Clerk of the Court is directed to

amend the docket sheet accordingly.

Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002). 2

Trevino v. Thaler, 133 S. Ct. 1911 (2013). 3

1

Case 4:00-cv-04036-PKH Document 198 Filed 03/03/15 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>
on the four ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims and the Court's “finding that Sasser is not

mentally retarded under Atkins;” (3) reversed “the Court’s denial of a[n evidentiary] hearing on the

four potentially meritorious ineffective assistance claims;” and (4) remanded for further

proceedings including an evidentiary hearing on the ineffective assistance claims and “a new Atkins

finding under the appropriate standard.” Sasser v. Hobbs, 735 F.3d 833 (8th Cir. 2013). 

Upon remand, the case was reassigned to the undersigned. After reviewing the Eighth

Circuit’s order, the Court set this matter for an evidentiary hearing to begin on January 20, 2015. 

The parties were also directed to brief Sasser’s Atkins claim in light of the Eighth Circuit’s

opinion. The Atkins issue has been fully briefed as of December 17, 2014. The evidentiary

hearing, however, was cancelled to be rescheduled after resolution of Sasser’s pending motions. 

The Court will address each motion in turn.

I. Motion for Leave to Amend

Sasser requests leave to amend his petition pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

15(a)(2), which provides that “[t]he court should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so

requires.” Sasser argues “[j]ustice requires amendment because the Eighth Circuit remanded this

case to this Court to resolve issues of fact,” and “[a]n amended petition setting out the facts that

Mr. Sasser will show at the . . . hearing will not only guide the Court in its determination of the

merits it will also provide notice to the Respondent of what Mr. Sasser intends to prove at the

evidentiary hearing.” (Doc. 185, ¶ 2). Although previous petitions by Mr. Sasser have been

relatively short, Sasser’s proposed third amended petition is over eighty pages. The proposed third

amended petition also appears to advance new substantive claims that Sasser is precluded from

bringing, as the Court is limited to consideration of only the four ineffective-assistance claims and

2

Case 4:00-cv-04036-PKH Document 198 Filed 03/03/15 Page 2 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>
the Atkins claim remanded by the Eighth Circuit. See Sasser v. Norris, 553 F.3d 1121, 1128 (8th

Cir. 2009) (on the second appeal of this case noting that where the Eighth Circuit, on the first

appeal, had “expressly limited the district court to consideration of one issue” the Court was

“impliedly prohibited” from considering any other issue). 

To the extent Sasser seeks only to plead additional facts in support of the claims falling

within the scope of the remand, the Court sees no need for additional pleading in the form of an

amended petition. Once an evidentiary hearing is reset, the parties will be given an opportunity

to file prehearing disclosure sheets as well as prehearing briefs setting out proposed findings of fact

and conclusions of law. (See Doc. 182, p. 3). 

II. Motion for Discovery

Sasser moves for leave to conduct discovery, specifically seeking the following:

• The complete institutional file of Andrew Sasser, SK#929, including, but

not limited to visitation logs, behavioral reports, inmate grievances,

classification documents, and medical and mental health records. This

includes all electronically maintained information, including EOMIS

records. 

• Any and all records, of any nature, in the possession of the Arkansas Parole

Board concerning Sasser. 

(Doc. 188, pp. 3 and 7). Kelley opposes Sasser’s motion. 

“A habeas petitioner, unlike the usual civil litigant in federal court, is not entitled to

discovery as a matter of ordinary course.” Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899, 904 (1997). Rather,

“[a] judge may, for good cause, authorize a party to conduct discovery under the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure and may limit the extent of discovery.” Rule 6(a) of the Rules Governing Section

2254 Cases (“Rule 6”). “The ‘good cause’ that authorizes discovery under Rule 6(a) requires a

3

Case 4:00-cv-04036-PKH Document 198 Filed 03/03/15 Page 3 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>
showing ‘that the petitioner may, if the facts are fully developed, be able to demonstrate that he

is . . . entitled to [habeas] relief.’” Rucker v. Norris, 563 F.3d 766, 771 (8th Cir. 2009) (quoting

Bracy, 520 U.S. at 909). The petitioner argues that good cause exists for the requested discovery

because it is relevant and necessary to support his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel,

particularly the claim that Sasser’s trial counsel ineffectively failed to prepare for the sentencing

phase of the trial. Sasser argues that his trial counsel should have inspected these records for

mitigating evidence.

Kelley argues that discovery is not warranted; that the discovery request is duplicative, as

Sasser’s counsel was previously allowed access to Sasser’s prison file in 2010; alternatively, that

the request for discovery is premature prior to the Court deciding whether the remanded

ineffective-assistance claims were procedurallydefaulted; and, alternatively, that Sasser’s discovery

requests are not appropriately limited in time or scope. 

It is hard for this Court to find that discovery is not warranted in this case, where it was

previously ordered (Doc. 138) albeit in a different procedural and substantive context. The current

motion is raised at a time when this case has been ongoing for fifteen years and survived to be

remanded after three appeals. The Court is also ever cognizant of the fact that this is a case in

which the petitioner faces the death penalty. Where a question of discovery is left to the discretion

of the Court, a man’s life must weigh more heavily than relatively trivial or technical concerns of

a respondent. In this case, given the protracted nature of the litigation and the high stakes

involved, it would seem most prudent to allow Sasser’s requested discovery. In any event, the

Court agrees that Sasser has shown good cause for the Court to allow his requested discovery to

proceed.

4

Case 4:00-cv-04036-PKH Document 198 Filed 03/03/15 Page 4 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>
Addressing Kelley’s objections, the Court finds that the requested discovery is relevant to

the issue on remand as to whether Sasser’s counsel was ineffective at sentencing. The Court does

not find that Sasser’s request for production of his prison file should be denied as duplicative of

the request that was previously granted in 2010. Sasser’s counsel could not have been expected

to review Sasser’s file in 2010 with prescient awareness of claims that would be remanded for

consideration four years later. It is not unduly burdensome for either the Arkansas Department of

Corrections or the Arkansas Parole Board to produce or allow review of Sasser’s files. The request

is not premature, as the Eighth Circuit has stated that even questions of procedural default will

necessitate a hearing, which “will necessarily address the underlying merits of the four [ineffectiveassistance] claims because, unless postconviction counsel’s failure to raise a claim was prejudicial,

the claim remains procedurally barred despite Trevino.” Sasser v. Hobbs, 743 F.3d 1151, 1151

(8th Cir. 2014) (denying rehearing en banc). The records requested by Sasser will be relevant to

showing prejudice, an issue that must be considered even as to the threshold matter of procedural

default. 

However, the Court agrees with Kelley that the requests are not appropriately limited in

time. Sasser has not, at this time, shown good cause for why all records should be produced up

to the present date. All ineffective-assistance claims to be heard by the Court on remand relate to

Sasser’s sentencing. Any Trevino procedural-default consideration of whether postconviction

counsel was ineffective would also be limited to postconviction counsel’s alleged failures to

investigate trial counsel’s failure to investigate relevant records prior to sentencing. The Court will

therefore order the Arkansas Department of Corrections and the Arkansas Board of Parole to

produce Sasser’s requested documents from prior to the time of the entry of his judgment and

5

Case 4:00-cv-04036-PKH Document 198 Filed 03/03/15 Page 5 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>
commitment order on May 4, 1994. If Sasser believes later dated documents are relevant to his

claims, he may file a separate motion showing good cause for the production of those documents

specifically. 

III. Motion to Resolve Intellectual Disability Issue

Sasser requests the Court to resolve the issue of whether he is intellectually disabled before

holding an evidentiary hearing on the ineffective-assistance claims. Sasser argues that, if the Court

finds that Sasser is intellectually disabled, there might be no need to hold “the more costly and

time consuming hearing on the merits of the ineffective assistance of counsel claims.” (Doc. 196,

¶ 2). Kelley objects to this approach. Kelley’s position is that no evidentiary hearing is necessary

on the ineffective-assistance claims, and so such claims should be considered together with the

Atkins claims as the Court’s docket allows. While the Court cannot find at this time that no

hearing on the ineffective-counsel claims is necessary for the reasons advanced by either side, the

Court does agree with Kelley that it is not necessary to delay consideration of the ineffectiveassistance claims in order for the Court to consider the Atkins claim. 

The Court is aware that the Atkins claim has been briefed and is ripe for consideration. The

Court will rule on that issue as its docket allows without regard for whether or not the ineffectiveassistance claims have also ripened. The Court will therefore deny Sasser’s motion insofar as it

seeks to bind the Court to decide the Atkins claim before consideration of the ineffective-assistance

claims. 

IV. Conclusion

For all of the reasons set forth above, IT IS ORDERED that Sasser’s motion for leave to

file a third amended petition (Doc. 185) is DENIED.

6

Case 4:00-cv-04036-PKH Document 198 Filed 03/03/15 Page 6 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Sasser’s motion for discovery (Doc. 188) is GRANTED. 

A separate order will be entered directing the Arkansas Department of Corrections and the

Arkansas Board of Parole to produce the requested documents. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Sasser’s motion to resolve issue of intellectual disability

prior to evidentiary hearing (Doc. 196) is DENIED.

A hearing on the ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims will be reset by separate order.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 3rd day of March, 2015.

/s/P. K. Holmes, III

P.K. HOLMES, III

CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

7

Case 4:00-cv-04036-PKH Document 198 Filed 03/03/15 Page 7 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>