N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
SC OTT M IC HAEL HILL, Pe titione r - Appe lle e , v. PATR IC K GLEB E, R

e sponde nt - Appe lla nt. No. 15-35458

D.C . No. 3:14-c v-05330-R JB
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the W e ste rn Distric t of W a shington R obe rt J. B ry a

n, Se nior Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d and Subm itte d June 7, 2016 Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : PAEZ, B Y B EE, a nd C HR ISTEN, C irc uit Judge s. Hill wa s c onvic te d

of va rious c rim e s in W a shington sta te c ourt. He late r file d a ha be a s pe tition in fe de ra l c ourt. In it, Hill provide d e vide n c e sugge sting that he ha d a c olora ble dim inishe d c a

pa c ity de fe n se to his sta

te c onvic tions. He 

# FIL ED JUN 16 2016 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.a lso provide d e vide nc e indic ating tha t his trial c o unse l m ay

have be e n ine ffe c tive in not disc ove ring a

nd pre se nting this de fe nse during tria l. Hill’ s ine ffe c tive a ssista

nc e c la im wa s ne ve r c onside re d on them e rits by the W a shington Supre m e C ourt be c a use Hill’ s sta

te ha be a s c o unse l did not properly
ra ise it. Norm a lly , this would me an Hill is proc e dura lly

ba rre d from ra i sing this
c la im in this fe de ra l ha

b e a s proc e e ding. B ut the fe de ra l distric t c ourt orde re d a n e vide ntia ry he a ring to de te rm ine whe the r Hill fa lls unde r the proc e dura l ba r e xc e ption outline d in Martine z v . Ry an , 132 S. C t. 1309 (2012)
. The gove rnm e nt sought this inte rloc utory a ppe a l on the na

rrow que stion of whe the r Hill is e ntitle d to a n e vide ntia

ry he aring in the se c irc um s ta nc e s. W e hold he is, a nd a ffirm
. 1. Hill is e ntitle d

to a n e vide ntia

ry he a ring unde r Martine

z v . Ry a n . B e c a

use the W a shington Supre m e C ourt dismisse d Hill’ s ine ffe c tive a ssista n c e c la i m on proc e d ura l grounds, this would norm a lly m e an Hill is proc e dura lly ba rre d from
ra ising this c la im

in the se fe de ra l ha

be a s proc e e dings. Dic k

e ns v . Ry a n , 740 F.3d 1302, 1317 (9th C ir. 2014) (e n ba nc ). Inde e d, the gove rnm e nt c onc e de d at ora l
argum e nt tha

t proc e dura l ba

r c o uld a pply he re . B ut proc e d

ura l ba r is e xc use d if the p e titione r c an show tha t his sta te ha be a s c o unse l wa s ine ffe c tive in not ra ising his tria l ine ffe c tive a ssista n c e c la im
. Id. at 1318; se ealso M artine z , 132 S. C t. at 21315. To provec a use , pe titione rs m

ust be a fforde d

an e v ide ntia

ry he aring to de ve lop a prope r fa c tua l re c ord. De tric h v
. Ry an , 740 F.3d 1237, 1246–48 (9th C ir. 2013) (e n ba

nc ). Thus, be c a

use Hill c la i m s tha

t his sta t e ha b e a s c ounse l wa s ine ffe c tive in not properly ra ising his tria

l ine ffe c tive a ssista

nc e c la im , he should be a fforde d a

n e vide ntia

ry he aring to e sta

blish c a use unde r Martine

z. Se eDic k

e ns , 740 F.3d a

t 1321 (holding tha

t the pe t itione r should be a fforde d a n e vide ntia ry he aring to de te rm ine whe the r a proc e dura l de fa

ult should be

e xc use d a

nd, if so

“ AEDPA [would] no longe r a ppl[y ] and a fe de ra l c ourt [c o uld] he ar this ne w c la im de novo” ); se e also Martine z , 132 S. C t. at 1318 (“ Allowing a fe de ra l ha

be a s c ourt to he ar a c la im of ine ffe c tive a ssista

nc e of tria l c o unse l whe n a n attorne y 's e rrors (or the a bse nc e of a

n attorne y ) c a

use d a proc e dura l de fa

ult in a n initial -re v ie w c olla te ra l proc e e ding a c knowle dge s, a s a n e quita ble m atte r, tha

t the initia l-re vie w c olla te ra l proc e e ding, if undertake n without c ounse l or with ine ffe c tive c ounse l,
m ay not ha ve be e n suffic ie nt to e nsure tha t prope r c onside ration wa s give n to a substa ntia l c la i m .” ). 2. W e re

je c t the gove rnm e nt’ s c onte ntion tha t 28 U.S.C . § 2254(e ) re q

uire s Hill’ s ine ffe c tive a ssista

nc e c la im s to be de te rm ine d sole ly on the re c ord provide d to the sta te c ourts. Se c tion 2254(e ) “ doe s not ba r a he aring be fore the distric t c ourt to a l low a pe titione r to show ‘ c a

use ’ unde r Martine

z .” Dic k e ns , 740 F.3d a

t 1321. 3Inde e d , the W a shington Supre m e C ourt re je c t e d Hill’ s c la im on proc e dura l grounds, so there is not y e t a full e vide ntia

ry re c ord. S

e eDe tric h , 740 F.3d a

t 1247–48 (“ [G] ive n that the re a s on for the he aring is thea l le ge d ine ffe c tive ne ss of both tria l a

nd PC R c ounse l , it m ake s littlese nse to a pply § 2254(e )(2).” ). 3. Fina lly , the re is no m e rit to thegove rnm e nt’ s a rgum e nt tha

t it c an pre ve nt Martine z from a pply i ng by

sim ply re fra i ning from ra ising theproc e dura l ba r. The fe de ra l c o urts c an a

pply the proc e dura l ba

r sua sponte . S

e e C hak e r v . C rogan , 428 F.3d 1215, 1220 (9th C ir. 2005) (“ [W ] e m a y sua sponte . . . [find thepe titione r] proc e d ura lly ba rre d.” ); Vang v
. N

e v ada , 329 F.3d 1069, 1073 (9th C ir. 2003). And the s tat e ’ s position tha

t it m ust volunta

rily ra ise the proc e dura l ba

r be fore a pe titione r c an ha

ve a he aring unde r Martine z would le a d to a

b surd re sults: The gove rnm e nt c ould opt ne ve r to ra ise the proc e dura l ba r, e ffe c tive ly

pre ve nting a pe titione r from

e ve r de ve loping a

fa c t ua l re c ord to support his ine ffe c tive
a ssista nc e c la im
. AFFIRM E D
.

4