Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-00039/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-00039-3/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 

Darrel Eston Lee, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-04-0039-PHX-JJT

DEATH PENALTY CASE 

ORDER 

 Before the Court is Respondents’ Motion to Strike Exhibits. (Doc. 129.) Pursuant 

to Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Respondents move to strike the 

exhibits attached to Petitioner’s supplemental reply brief. (Doc. 128.) Petitioner opposes 

the motion. (Doc. 130.) 

 This case was remanded by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which ordered the 

Court, in the light of intervening law,1

 to reconsider Claim 2 and to address whether 

reconsideration is warranted as to Claims 9(A) and 9(D). (Doc. 109.) 

 Petitioner filed his supplemental Martinez brief on September 4, 2015. (Doc. 120.) 

Respondents filed their response on November 24, 2015, to which Petitioner replied on 

January 27, 2016. (Docs. 124, 128.) Petitioner attached three exhibits to his reply brief: a 

report by Dr. Barry Morenz, dated January 21, 2016, which is an addendum to his report 

of August 24, 2015; a declaration of Dr. Kenneth Benedict, dated January 20, 2016; and a 

 

1 Martinez v. Ryan, 132 S. Ct. 1309 (2012), and Dickens v. Ryan, 740 F.3d 1392 

(9th Cir. 2014) (en banc). 

Case 2:04-cv-00039-JJT Document 132 Filed 03/07/16 Page 1 of 3
- 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 

copy of the American Psychological Association’s “Ethical Principles of Psychologists 

and Code of Conduct.” (Doc. 128-1.) Dr. Morenz’s addendum addresses arguments made 

in Respondents’ response brief challenging his previous expert testimony. Dr. Benedict’s 

declaration criticizes the methodology and conclusions reached by Dr. Michael Bayless 

in 1993 and Dr. James Youngjohn in 2002, who each diagnosed Petitioner with antisocial personality disorder. 

 Respondents contend that it is inappropriate to raise new facts and arguments in a 

reply brief and that the Court should strike the new exhibits because they constitute an 

improper attempt to expand the record in violation of Rule 7 of the Rules Governing 

Section 2254 Cases. (Doc. 129 at 3; Doc. 131 at 6–7.) Rule 7(c) provides that the judge 

“must give the party against whom the additional materials are offered an opportunity to 

admit or deny their correctness.” 

 Petitioner did not move to expand the record to include the exhibits attached to his 

reply brief. However, he did move to expand the record under Rule 7 to include the 

exhibits attached to his supplemental Martinez brief (Doc. 120 at 76–77), and 

Respondents did not object to that limited expansion of the record (Doc. 124 at 1). 

Although Petitioner now contends that Rule 7 does not apply for purposes of the cause 

and prejudice analysis under Martinez and Dickens, he does “not object to Respondents’ 

production of additional evidence at this stage of the proceeding.” (Doc. 130 at 5–6, 13.) 

 Respondents do not request an opportunity to file a surreply. Nevertheless, at this 

point in the case, before the Court has determined whether additional evidentiary 

development is warranted, the Court finds that allowing Respondents an opportunity to 

reply to the new materials, rather than striking the exhibits, is the most appropriate 

course. 

 Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED denying Respondents’ Motion to Strike Exhibits (Doc. 129). 

/// 

/// 

Case 2:04-cv-00039-JJT Document 132 Filed 03/07/16 Page 2 of 3
- 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 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondents may file a surreply no later than 

March 25, 2016. 

 Dated this 7th day of March, 2016. 

 

 Honorable John J. Tuchi 

 United States District Judge 

Case 2:04-cv-00039-JJT Document 132 Filed 03/07/16 Page 3 of 3