Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_97-cv-01331/USCOURTS-azd-2_97-cv-01331-4/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

David Martinez Ramirez, 

Petitioner, 

v.

Dora B. Schriro, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 97-1331-PHX-JAT

DEATH PENALTY CASE

ORDER

In March 2005, the Court issued a stay of Petitioner’s sentencing-related claims while

he pursued relief in state court pursuant to Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002), based on

mental retardation. (Dkt. 119.) In April 2007, Petitioner informed the Court that

proceedings in the superior court were complete and relief had been denied. (Dkt. 165.)

Subsequently, in a December 2007 report, Petitioner indicated that his petition for review at

the Arizona Supreme Court had been denied, and he would be filing a petition for certiorari

in the United States Supreme Court. (Dkt. 168.) A review of his next two bi-monthly reports

indicates that the petition for certiorari was filed and briefed. (Dkts. 170, 171.) In

Petitioner’s most recent status report to this Court, filed on June 23, 2008, there is no mention

of the certiorari petition; rather, he states only that corrected transcripts will be finalized in

the superior court on June 27. (Dkt. 172.) However, the Supreme Court docket reveals that

the petition has been denied (Ramirez v. Arizona, No. 07-9853, 2008 WL 717699 (U.S. May

19, 2008)). Therefore, the Court will lift the stay.

 In prior filings, Petitioner indicated an intent to seek amendment to add an Atkins

Case 2:97-cv-01331-JAT Document 173 Filed 06/30/08 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

- 2 -

claim to his habeas petition if he did not obtain relief in state court. Therefore, the Court will

set a briefing schedule for a motion to amend. A petition for habeas corpus may be amended

pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 28 U.S.C. § 2242; see also Rule 11, Rules

Governing § 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254 (providing that the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure may be applied to habeas petitions to the extent the rules are not inconsistent with

the habeas rules). Thus, the Court looks to Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

to address a party’s motion to amend a pleading in a habeas corpus action. See James v.

Pliler, 269 F.3d 1124, 1126 (9th Cir. 2001). Further, the Court considers the following

factors which may justify denying a motion to amend: undue delay, bad faith or dilatory

motive, futility of amendment, undue prejudice to the opposing party, and whether petitioner

has previously amended. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); Bonin v. Calderon, 59

F.3d 815, 845 (9th Cir. 1995). 

In seeking amendment, Petitioner shall address Rule 15 and the above factors.

Additionally, in prior filings, Respondents raised a possible statute of limitations defense to

an Atkins claim in this Court (Dkts. 131 at 3-4, 133 at 2-3), and Petitioner indicated that he

would argue entitlement to equitable tolling (Dkt. 132 at 9). Thus, in the context of whether

amendment may be futile, Petitioner’s motion to amend shall address the statute of

limitations and any arguments he wishes to make regarding equitable tolling.

The Local Rules provide that a party moving to amend must file a copy of the

proposed amendment indicating all changes as well as a clean copy of the proposed amended

pleading. LRCiv 15.1. In light of the indication that amendment will be contested and will

only involve one claim, Petitioner’s motion need not comply with the requirements of Local

Rule 15.1; rather, Petitioner shall include the text of the proposed claim within the body of

the motion to amend.

In light of the very lengthy history of this case, and the fact that counsel has been on

the case for more than six years and has had time to, and has, conducted investigation, the

Court intends to maintain a tight briefing schedule for the remainder of the filings in this

Case 2:97-cv-01331-JAT Document 173 Filed 06/30/08 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 -

case. Absent extraordinary circumstances, the Court does not intend to grant extensions of

time.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the March 11, 2005 Stay (Dkt. 119) of

Petitioner’s sentencing-related claims is Lifted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner shall file a motion to amend within

thirty (30) days of the file date of this Order. Respondents shall respond within twenty (20)

days of the filing of the motion, and Petitioner’s reply shall be filed within ten (10) days of

the response.

DATED this 27th day of June, 2008.

Case 2:97-cv-01331-JAT Document 173 Filed 06/30/08 Page 3 of 3