Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_97-cv-01331/USCOURTS-azd-2_97-cv-01331-0/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

David Martinez Ramirez, 

Petitioner, 

v.

Dora B. Schriro, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 97-1331-PHX-JAT

DEATH PENALTY CASE

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Respondents’ Motion to Lift Stay of sentencing-related

claims. The Court entered a stay on March 11, 2005, because Petitioner is seeking relief

from his death sentence in state court based on mental retardation pursuant to Atkins v.

Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002). (Dkt. 119.) One of the bases for granting the stay was

judicial efficiency and economy because Petitioner’s sentencing-related claims in this Court

will be moot if the state court grants relief on Petitioner’s Atkins claim. (Id. at 3.) 

Respondents argue that the stay should be lifted because Petitioner will not be allowed

to amend his petition in this Court to add an Atkins claim, based on the intervening decisions

of Mayle v. Felix, 125 S. Ct. 2562 (2005), and Dodd v. United States, 125 S. Ct. 2478

(2005). These cases address relation-back of amendments to habeas petitions and the

application of the statute of limitations to newly recognized rights, respectively. The Court

finds that the decision of whether amendment will be allowed is premature until such time

as Petitioner seeks leave to amend to add a claim based on Atkins.

Petitioner has satisfied the standard for the granting of a stay pursuant to Rhines v.

Case 2:97-cv-01331-JAT Document 138 Filed 10/19/05 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 -

Weber, 125 S. Ct. 1528, 1535 (2005). (Dkt. 126.) Further, the goal of judicial efficiency and

economy is served by the current stay, regardless of whether Petitioner ever seeks to add an

Atkins claim in this Court. (Dkt. 119.)

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Respondents’ Motion to Lift Stay (dkt. 131) is DENIED.

DATED this 19th day of October, 2005.

Case 2:97-cv-01331-JAT Document 138 Filed 10/19/05 Page 2 of 2