Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_98-cv-00430/USCOURTS-azd-2_98-cv-00430-3/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Milo McCormick Stanley, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Charles Ryan, Director of the Arizona

Department of Corrections

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-98-00430-PHX-NVW

DEATH PENALTY CASE

ORDER

On October 5, 2010, the mandate of the United States Court of Appeals for the

Ninth Circuit issued, remanding this case for an evidentiary hearing on Petitioner Milo

McCormick Stanley’s claim of ineffective assistance during the sentencing phase. (Doc.

89-1 at 24.) 

As the Court of Appeals explained:

To establish a violation of his Sixth Amendment right to effective

assistance of counsel, Stanley must show that (1) counsel’s performance fell

below an “objective standard of reasonableness” and (2) he was prejudiced

by this deficient performance. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668,

687-88 (1984).

(Doc. 89-1 at 12.) With respect to the sentencing phase of trial, the panel majority found

that Stanley had made a prima facie case of ineffective assistance of counsel because trial

counsel did not provide to the mental health experts who evaluated Stanley notes from jail

psychiatrist Dr. Hammitt’s interview of Stanley, “[b]oth defense experts agreed that the

Case 2:98-cv-00430-GMS Document 93 Filed 01/20/11 Page 1 of 3
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

 The discovery deadline is the date by which all discovery must be completed. Discovery

requests must be served and depositions noticed sufficiently in advance of this date to ensure

reasonable completion by this deadline, including time to resolve discovery disputes. 

- 2 -

information regarding Stanley’s apparent dissociative state would have completely

changed their testimony in Stanley’s favor,” and “if proved, Stanley’s allegation would

establish that he was prejudiced by trial counsel’s failure to investigate and develop a

mitigation case based on the Hammitt interview.” (Id. at 8, 16, 21, 23.) The Court of

Appeals concluded, therefore, the district court abused its discretion in denying Stanley’s

petition for habeas relief without an evidentiary hearing. (Id. at 23.) The Court of

Appeals further explained: “All this decision does is give Stanley the opportunity to

establish whether his counsel’s failure to fully inform the defense mental health experts

undermines confidence in the sentence of death imposed.” (Doc. 89-1 at 19.) 

A Scheduling Conference is set for 10:00 a.m., February 17, 2011. In preparation

for the Scheduling Conference,

IT IS ORDERED that the parties are directed to meet and confer by February 4,

2011, to develop a joint proposed plan which contains the following information:

1. The parties who attended the case planning meeting and assisted in

developing the plan;

2. Specific issues to be decided on remand;

3. Contemplated motions and a statement of the issues to be decided by these

motions (including motions under Federal Rules of Evidence 702, 703, 704, and 705);

4. Necessary discovery;

5. Proposed specific dates for each of the following:

a. Completion of fact discovery1

 and disclosure pursuant to Rule

26(a)(3);

b. Complete disclosures of expert testimony under Rule 26(a)(2) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; 

c. A deadline for completion of all expert depositions; 

Case 2:98-cv-00430-GMS Document 93 Filed 01/20/11 Page 2 of 3
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 -

6. Estimated length of the evidentiary hearing; and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties file their joint proposed plan by

February 11, 2011.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Court-appointed counsel shall file ex parte and

under seal a recommended budget by February 11, 2011.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall amend the Court’s docket to

show that Charles Ryan, Director of the Arizona Department of Corrections, is substituted

for Dora B. Schriro, Director of the Arizona Department of Corrections, pursuant to Fed.

R. Civ. P. 25(d).

DATED this 20th day of January, 2011.

Case 2:98-cv-00430-GMS Document 93 Filed 01/20/11 Page 3 of 3