Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00785/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00785-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

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

Luis Mariano Martinez, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Dora B. Schriro; et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 08-785-PHX-JAT

ORDER

The Court has received the Mandate from the Court of Appeals. Doc. 27. Consistent

with the decision of the United States Supreme Court, the Court will order supplemental

briefing on the following issues:

1. Whether counsel in Petitioner’s first collateral proceeding was ineffective (Doc.

26-1 at 18).

2. Whether Petitioner’s claim that trial counsel was ineffective is substantial (id.).

3. Whether Petitioner can show prejudice to excuse his procedural default (id.).

4. Assuming Petitioner can show 1-3 above, whether trial counsel was ineffective

(Doc. 12 at 26-28). This briefing should be made as an objection to the Report

and Recommendation. As part of this issue, Petitioner should explain: a) why he

claims he is entitled to an evidentiary hearing (Doc. 16 at 7), and b) what specific

Case 2:08-cv-00785-JAT Document 28 Filed 07/02/12 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

1

 In order to qualify for an evidentiary hearing, Petitioner must both: “(1) allege facts

which, if proven, would entitle him to relief, and (2) show that he did not receive a full and

fair hearing in a state court, either at the time of the trial or in a collateral proceeding.”

Belmontes v. Brown, 414 F.3d 1094, 1124 (9th Cir. 2005)(rev’d on other grounds Ayers v.

Belmontes, 549 U.S. 7 (2006)); see also West v. Ryan, 608 F.3d 477, 485 (9th Cir. 2010). 

2

 Doc. 16 at 7 (... “whether this Court would be required to defer to the state court’s

finding that neither counsel was ineffective (unless such finding was “contrary to, or

involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law,” or an unreasonable

determination of the facts, see Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 71 (2003)) when the state

court made this finding only as an alternative holding, and the state court’s decision was

actually based on a [] procedural bar.”).

- 2 -

issues he believes could be proven at an evidentiary hearing.1 However,

Petitioner should not reserve making his merits objections on the assumption that

he will receive an evidentiary hearing. In other words, if the Court determines

that an evidentiary hearing is not required, the Court will proceed to rule on the

merits without an opportunity for further briefing.

5) As a matter of law as to how this Court should analyze issues 1 and 4, whether

the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act and other habeas comity

protocols require this Court to give deference to an alternative holding of the

state court.2

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Petitioner shall file a supplemental brief

(including objections to the Report and Recommendation) within 30 days of the date of this

Order.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent shall file a response to the

supplemental brief within 30 days of when the brief is filed.

DATED this 2nd day of July, 2012.

Case 2:08-cv-00785-JAT Document 28 Filed 07/02/12 Page 2 of 2