N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
R IC KY M OORE, Pe titione r - Appe lla nt,
v. J. SOTO, R

e sponde n t - Appe lle e . No. 12-56766

D.C . No. 2:10-C V-06739-DSFJC G
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Da le S. Fisc he r, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d April 6, 2015 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : D.W . NELSON, TASHIM A, a nd C LIFTON, C irc u i t Judge s. R ic ky M oore , a C a lifornia

sta te prisone r, a

ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s dism issa l of his ha

be a s pe tition. W e hav e jurisdic tion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C
. § 1291, a nd we re ve rse and re m and. 

# FIL E D
MAY18 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.The distric t c ourt sum m a rily a dopte d the m a gistra

te judge ’ s re p ort a

nd
re c o m m e ndation whic h propose d dism issing M oore ’ s pe tition a s untim e ly . The
re port a nd re c om m e ndation sta

te d in a footnote tha

t “ Pursua nt to Loc a l R

ule 7-12, the C ourt a lso de e m s Pe titione r’ s fa ilure to file opposition pa pe rs [to the m otion to dism iss] a s c onse nt to thegranting of the M otion [to Dism iss] .” Wh ile it is within
a distric t c ourt’ s disc re tion to gra nt a m otion to dism

i ss for fa ilure of a pro se litiga nt to oppose

the m otion, doing so is not re quire d. Se e Ghazali v . Moran , 46 F.3d 52, 53–54 (9th C ir. 1995) (pe r c uriam ). M ore ove r, be fore dism issing a pe tition on such grounds, the distric t c ourt
m ust we igh “ (1) the public ’ s inte re st in e xpe ditious re s olution of litiga tion; (2) the
c ourt’ s ne e d to m ana ge its doc ke t; (3) the risk of pre judic e to the de fe nda

nts; (4) the public polic y

favoring disposition of c a se s on the i r m e rits; a nd (5) the
ava ila bility of le ss dra stic sa

nc tions.” Id. at 53 (quoting He nde rson v . Dunc an , 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th C ir. 1986) (inte rna l quota tion m arks om itte d)). Whe n a distric t c o urt doe s not c onduc t this a na ly sis e xplic itly , “ we re vie wthe re c ord inde pe nde ntly

to de te rm ine whe the r the distric t c ourt a buse d its disc re tion.” Id. at 54. He re , the public m ay inde e d ha

ve an inte re st in thee xpe ditious re s olution of this litiga tion. Admitte dly , M oore file d his pe tition thirte e n y e ars late . Howe ve r, 2we m

ust we igh the ne e d for tim e ly re solution of c la im s a g a inst the othe r fa c tors. The re is nothing in the

re c ord re ga

rding the distric t c ourt’ s ne e d to m ana ge its doc ke t. In a ddition, the

wa rde n ha d notic e of M oore ’ s a c t ua l innoc e nc e c l a im whe n he brought his sta

te ha be a s pe tition be fore the C a lifornia Supre m e C ourt a

nd the re fore would not be

pre judic e d by

the c ontinua

tion of this m

atte r. Furthe rm ore , the p ublic polic y

favoring dispositions of c a se s on the ir m e rits a ppe a rs pa rtic ula rly strong in a

c a se suc h a s this whe re the pe titione r a lle ge s a c tua l innoc e nc e . Fina lly , with re spe c t to theava ila

bility of le ss dra stic sa

nc tions, “ [t] h e distric t

c o urt a buse s its disc re t ion if it im

pose s a sa nc tion of dism

issa l without first c onside ring the im pa c t of the sa

n c tion a nd the a de qua c y of le ss dra stic sa nc tions.” In re Phe ny lpropanolamine

(PPA) Prods. Liab. Litig. , 460 F.3d 1217, 1228 (9th C ir. 2006) (inte rna l quota

t ion m a rks a nd c ita tion omitte d). Ne ithe r the wa

rde n’ s m otion to dism

iss nor thedistric t c ourt’ s orde r dism issing the pe t ition a d d re s se d M oore ’ s c la im

of a c tua l innoc e nc e . Unde r Mc Q uiggin v
. Pe rk

i ns , a prisone r who m ake s a c re dible showing of a c tua l innoc e nc e m ay

“ pursue his c onstitutiona l c la im s . . . on them e rits notwithsta nding the e xiste nc e of a

proc e dura l ba

r to re lie f,” suc h a s AEDPA’ s sta tute of lim ita

tions. M oore ha s not ha d t

he opportunity to m ake suc h a showing be c a

use he ha s not ha d
a c c e ss to thesta

te c o urt re c ord. Thus, it wa s e rror for the distric t c ourt to ignore
3M oore ’ s Pe rk ins c la im
. 133 S. C t. 1924, 1931 (2003). We the re fore re ve rse the distric t c o urt’ s orde r dism issing M oore ’ s pe t ition a nd re m and for lodging of the sta te c o urt re c ord, furthe r brie fing a nd c onside ra tion of whe the r M o ore ha s m a de a
c re d ible s howing of a c t

ua l innoc e nc e pursua

nt to Pe rk ins
. W e note tha

t the wa rde n’ s Nove m

be r 13, 2013, re s ponse to this C ourt’ s Orde r to Show C a

use a ppe ars to ha

ve quote d se le c tive ly

from the sta t e c ourt
re c o rd. The wa

rde n ha s, howe ve r, not provide d M oore with a c opy of the
c om ple t e re c ord or inc lude d those m at e ria ls a m ong the doc um e n ts lodge d with the distric t c o urt. On re m and, the distric t c ourt should order the wa rde n to lodgethe
c om ple t e sta te c ourt re c ord a

n d to provide a

c opy to M oore . Se e R

ule 5(c ), R

ule s Gove rning § 2254 C a se s in theU.S. Distric t C ourts. The disse nt sugge sts tha t a ny de ve lopm e nt of the re c ord would c onflic t with C ulle n v . Pinholster , 131 S. C t. 1388 (2011). Suc h c onc e rns a re pre m ature . All M o ore se e ks a t this point is to put the s tat e c ourt re c ord be fore the distric t c ourt, whic h Pinholste r pla inly a llows. Se e id. at 1398. If M oore se e ks to e xpa nd the re c ord furthe r, the distric t c ourt c an, at that tim e , a ddre ss the a

pplic a bility of Pinholste r

unde r the c irc um sta

nc e s the n pre s e nte d. RE V E RSE D and RE M ANDE D for fur the r pr oc e e dings.

4No. 12-56766, Moorev . Soto

C LIFTON, C irc uit Judge , disse nting: I re spe c tfully

disse nt. In m

y vie w, the dism issa l of M o ore ’ s ha be a s pe tition should bea ffirm e d for two indepe nde ntly suffic i e nt re a sons. First, the distric t c ourt prope rly re lie d on M oore ’ s fa ilure to opposethe Stat e ’ s m otion to dism

iss a s a n a lte rnative ba sis for dismissing the pe tition. The C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Loc a l R ule s re quire tha

t opposing pa

pe rs be file d in
re sponse to a

m otion to dism

i ss a nd provide tha

t fa i lure to do so m a

y be de e m e d
c onse n t to thegran t ing of the m otion. Our c a se la w e s ta blishe s tha

t “pro se litiga nts a re bound by

the rule s of proc e dure ,” and tha t “ [f] a ilure to follow a

distric t
c ourt’ s loc a l rule s is a

prope r ground for dismissa l.” Ghazali v . Moran , 46 F.3d 52, 53, 54 (9th C ir. 1995) (pe r c uriam ). B a se d on its inde pe nde nt re v i e w of the
re c o rd, the m a

j ority c onc lude s tha

t the distric t c ourt a

buse d its disc re tion whe n it dism isse d the pe tition. I re s pe c tfully disa gre e with tha

t c onc l usion. “ Only in ra re
c a se s will weque stion thee xe rc ise of disc re tion in c onne c tion with the a pplic ation 

# FIL E D
MAY18 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALSof loc a l rule s . This is not one of those infre que nt c a se s.” Unite d State s v . W arre n , 601 F.2d 471, 474 (9th C ir. 1979) (pe r c uriam ). 1 Se c ond, I be lie ve the m a

jority ’ s de c ision to re m and this c a se to the distric t
c ourt to “ de ve lop[ ] . . . the re c ord” runs a foul of C ulle n v . Pinholster , 131 S. C t. 1388 (2011). Pinholste r te a c he s tha t a fe de ra l c ourt’ s “ re vie w unde r § 2254(d)(1) is limite d to the re c ord tha t wa s be fore the sta

te c ourt.” Id . at 1398. The a c tua l innoc e nc e c la im

wa s ra ise d

in M oore ’ s sta

te ha be a s pe tition. M oore c ould ha ve sought to deve lop the re c ord by filing a pe tition in the

sta te tria l c ourt first, but inste a d he we nt stra i ght to theC a lifornia Supre m e C ourt pursua

nt to tha t c ourt’ s

“ origina l writ” sy ste m . Se e C A L . C O N S T . a rt. VI, § 10 (“ T he Supre m e C o urt, c ourts of a ppe a l , supe rior c ourts, a

nd the ir judge s ha

ve origina l jurisdic tion in ha be a s
c orpus proc e e dings.” ); se e also B R I AN R
. M E A N S , P O S T C O N V I C T I O N RE M E D I E S § 2:5 (2014 e d .) (“ [T] he supe rior c ourts, of c ourse , a re be tte r suite d to fa c t-finding,
and the a ppe l late c ourts m ay

de c line to e x e rc ise the i r origina l jurisdic tion ove r the

1 The m a jority sugge sts, a

t 3, tha t it wa s e rror for the distric t c ourt to ignore M oore ’ s c la im unde r Mc Quiggin v

. Pe rk ins , 133 S. C t. 1924 (2013), be c a use “ a prisone r who m a

ke s a c re d i ble showing of a c t

ua l innoc e nc e m a

y ‘ pursue his c onstitutiona

l c la im s . . . on them e rits notwithsta nding thee xiste nc e of a proc e d ura l ba r to re lie f.’ ” What tha

t re quire s is a

“ c re dible showing,”howe ve r. Pe rk ins , 133 S. C t . at 1931. M oore ha s m a de no “ showing”of a ny kind, le t a lone a c re d ible o ne . A c l a im

of innoc e nc e supporte d by no e vide nc e at a ll is not enough. 2[ha

b e a s] pe tition.” ) (footnote om itte d). Ha ving fa i le d to de v e l op the fa c tua l re c ord in sta te c ourt, M o ore c a

nnot now do so in the

first insta nc e in fe de ra l c o urt. I would a ffirm the dism issa l of the pe tition.

3