Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_87-cv-00234/USCOURTS-azd-4_87-cv-00234-4/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

Robert Douglas Smith, 

Petitioner, 

v.

Charles L. Ryan, et al.,

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-87-234-TUC-CKJ

DEATH PENALTY CASE

ORDER

 

In February 2009, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals remanded this matter for “an

evidentiary hearing on the question whether Smith has established cause and prejudice to

overcome the procedural default of his sentencing ineffectiveness claim and such other

matters as the court may deem appropriate.” Smith v. Schriro, No. 96-99025 (9th Cir. Feb.

26, 2009). Following an evidentiary hearing, Chief United States District Court Judge John

M. Roll determined that Petitioner failed to establish cause. Subsequently, the Ninth Circuit

again remanded for the limited purpose of considering a claim of mental retardation under

Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002). Smith v. Schriro, No. 96-99025 (9th Cir. Sept. 10,

2010). The matter was reassigned to the undersigned judge in February 2011, and the Court

granted Petitioner’s motion to amend his habeas petition to add several new claims arising

from pursuit of state postconviction relief under Atkins. (Doc. 269.) The parties filed

supplemental briefs addressing the merits of these claims, and the matter is presently under

advisement.

Case 4:87-cv-00234-CKJ Document 277 Filed 03/22/12 Page 1 of 2
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 -

In the intervening time since Judge Roll’s consideration of Petitioner’s cause

arguments, the United States Supreme Court has issued two opinions addressing cause to

excuse procedural default of counsel ineffectiveness claims. See Martinez v. Ryan, No. 10-

1001, 2012 WL 912950 (U.S. Mar. 20, 2012) (ineffective assistance of state postconviction

counsel as cause), and Maples v. Thomas, 132 S. Ct. 912 (2012) (abandonment by state

postconviction counsel as cause). In light of these new cases, the parties are directed to file,

within thirty (30) days of this Order, simultaneous supplemental briefs addressing the effect,

if any, of Martinez and Maples on the cause issue in this case. Such briefs should also

address the question of whether the Ninth Circuit’s limited Atkins remand provides

jurisdiction for this Court to reconsider Judge Roll’s cause determination, should the Court

determine that reconsideration is warranted. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 21st day of March, 2012.

Case 4:87-cv-00234-CKJ Document 277 Filed 03/22/12 Page 2 of 2