F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T DA NI E L WAYN E C OO K, P e titio n e r- A p p e lla n t, v. C HA R L E S L . R YA N, R es po nd ent- A pp el l ee . N o. 12- 16562 D . C. N o . 2 : 9 7 - c v - 0 0 1 4 6 - RCB ORDE R AND OP I NI ON

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

A r i z ona R obe rtC . B r oom f

i e l d, S e ni orD i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d J ul y26, 2012 S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia F i l e d J ul y27, 2012 B e f o r e : O ’S C A N N L A I N , G R A B E R , a n d C A L L A H A N , C ir c u it J u d g e s .

O pi ni on by Judg e C A L L A H A N , C i rc ui tJudg e: T h is is th e s e c o n d tim e D a n ie l W a y n e C o o ks e e k s h ab e a s r e v ie w in th is c o u rt. See C o o k v. Sch ri ro , 538 F . 3d 1000, 1007 ( 9th C i r . 2008) . T hr e e thi ngs have happ ened si nce w e i ss ued o ur deci si on i n 2 00 8. F i rs t , the S up re m e C ou rt i s s ue d i t s de c i s i on i n M ar t i nezv . R

y an , - - U .S . - - , 1 3 2 S . C t. 1 3 0 9 ( 2 0 1 2 ) . 

# FI LED JU L 27 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSC oo k fi l ed a s ec on d h abea s pet i t i on ra i si ng the sa m e I A C cl ai m s thatform 1 th e b asi s o f h i s R u l e 6 0 (b ) m o t i o n . T h e d i stri ctco u rtd i sm i ssed th e p et i t i o n as a s e c ond ors uc c e s s i ve pe t i t i on ba rr e d by28 U . S . C . § 2244( b) . C ook ha s not appe a l e d f

r om tha trul i ng, and w e do n otdi sc uss i tfurther. 2 M art i nez“ c ha nge d the l a nds c ape w i th r e s pe c tt o w he the ri ne f f e c t i ve ne s s of po st conv i ct i on coun se l m ayes t abl i sh cause f or procedural defaul t . ” L opezv . R y an , 6 7 8 F .3 d 1 1 3 1 , 1 1 3 3 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 1 2 ) . S e c o n d , th e S ta te o f A r iz o n ais s u e d ad e a th w arrantand setA ug ust8, 20 12 , as C oo k’ s e xecut i on dat e. T hi rd, the di stri ctcourt de ni e d C ook’ s F e de r a l R ul e of C i vi l P r oc e dur e 60( b) ( 6) m ot i on f orr e l i e f f r om j ud gm entun der M

art i nez . C ook

v . R y an , N o . 9 7 - c v - 0 0 1 4 6 - R C B , 2 0 1 2 WL 27 98 78 9 (D . A ri z. Jul y 9, 20 12 ) ( un pu bl i shed). 1 C o o ka s s e rts th a t h is p r e tr ia l c o u n s e l w a s in e f f e c tiv e a n d th a t h is pos t c onvi c t i on r e l i e f

( “ P C R ” ) c ouns e l w a s i ne f f e c t i ve i n C ook’ s pr e s e nt a t i on of th a t c la im . I n C o o k ’s v ie w , M a rt i n ez r e q u ir e s u s to e x c u s e h is p r o c e d u r a l d e f au lt b e c au s e o f

in e f f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f

c o u n s e l ( “I A C ” ) in h is s ta te P C R p r o c e e d in g s . C o o ka ls o a s k s u s to s ta yh is e x e c u tio n s o th a t h e m a yf u rth e rp u r s u e h is u n d e r l y i n g p r e tr i a l I A C c l a i m. W e a f f i rm the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s de c i s i on t o de nyC ook’ s R ul e 60( b) m ot i on a n d d e n yC o o k ’s m o tio n f o ras ta yo f

e x e c u tio n . M

a rt i n ez d o e s n o t ap p lyto th is c a s e g iv e n C o o k ’s d e c is io n to r e p r e s e n t h im s e lf d u r in g h is tr ia l a n d a t s e n te n c in g .3

E ven i f M

a rt i n ez d o e s ap p ly , th a t d e c is io n a f f o r d s C o o kn o r e lie f

b e c au s e h is p r e tr ia l I A C c la im la c k s m e r it. A u n iq u e f

e a tu r e o f th is c a s e , a n d o n e th a t in f o rm s m u c h o f

o u ra n a ly s is , is thatC oo k’ s pre tri al coun se l ce as ed t o repre se ntC oo k aft erse ven m on ths, atw hi ch poi ntC ook de c i de d t o r e pr e s e nthi m s e l f . T he pr opr i e tyof

C ook’ s w a i ve rof c o u n s e l h a s b e e n f

u llylitig a te d a n d is n o t a t is s u e in th is ap p e a l. D u r in g h is l i m i t ed p eri o d o f rep resen t at i o n , C o o k ’ s p retri al co u n sel act ed co m p et en t l y b y, am o n g o th erth in g s, p ro cu rin g tw o m en tal ev alu atio n s a n d a h ea rin g o n C o o k ’s c om pe t e nc e t o s t a nd tr i a l . I nde e d, i n C ook’ s w a i ve rof c ouns e l he a r i ng, C ook s t a t e d tha thi s l a w y e r“ ha s w orke d ha r d f orm yde f

e ns e ; [ he ] c a r e s aboutthe ou t com e of m y tri al . ” C ook’ s pr e tr i a l c ouns e l c a nnotbe f aul t e d f orf a i l i ng t o de ve l op am i t i ga t i on ca se base d o n i nform at i on thatC oo k k new bu tdeci ded n ott o d i sc l ose, ei ther b ef o re o r d u rin g se n ten cin g . E v en if su ch fa u ltco u ldb e a ss ig n ed to C o o k ’s p retri al co u n sel , C o o kcan n o tsh o w p rej u d i ce b ecau se C o o kaffi rm at i v el y ch o se n o t to p r e s e n t anym i t i ga t i on i nf orm a t i on. M or e ove r , the s a m e j udge w ho s e nt e nc e d C ook i n 1988 r e c e nt l yr e vi e w e d m os tof the “ ne w ” m i t i ga t i on i nf orm a t i on C ook ha s s i nc e de ve l ope d a nd c onc l ude d tha ti tw oul d notha ve4

c ha nge d hi s de c i s i on. T hus , e ve n a s s um i ng M art i nezappl i es t o thi s c as e, C oo k h as no tra i se d a “ subst ant i al ” c l ai m thathi s pre tri al coun se l w as i neff ec t i ve. B AC KG RO UN D A . Fa c t ua lba c k g r o und T h e fact s are setfo rth i n o u r o p i n i o n affi rm i n g th e d en i al o f C o o k ’ s fi rst f e de r a l habe a s pe t i t i on, a s w e l l a s i n the A r i z onaS upr e m e C ourt ’ s opi ni on de ny i ng C o o k ’s d ir e c t ap p e a l. See C o o k v. Sch ri ro , 53 8 F . 3d 10 00 , 10 08 -09 (9th C i r. 2 0 0 8 ) ; State v . C ook , 821 P . 2d 731, 736- 37 ( A r i z . 1991) . T o s um m a r i z e , a tabout 6 p . m . on Jul y 19, 19 87 , C oo k sug gest ed t o h i s r oo m m at e, John E ug ene M atzke, thatthe tw o m en st ea l m on eyfr om C ar l os C ruz- R am os, a c o-w orker ata l ocal r e s t aur a ntw ho r e c e nt l yha d m ove d i n w i th C ook a nd M a t z ke . A f t e rC ruz - R a m os r e a l i z e d hi s m one yw a s gone , C ook a nd M a t z ke t i e d C ruz - R a m os t o ac ha i ra nd t ortured hi m for s i x h ou rs . A m on g o ther thi ng s, C oo k and M atzke beat C ru z - R a m o s w ith am e ta l p ip e ; b u rn e d h is c h e s t, s to m a c h , a n d g e n ita ls w ith ci gare tt es ; and cuthi s c hestw i th a kn i fe . C oo k al so raped C ruz- R am os and st apl ed C ru z - R a m o s ’s f

o r e s k in to ac h a ir . M a tz k e f in a llys tr a n g le d C ru z - R a m o s to d e a th w ith am e ta l p ip e , a n d th e tw o m e n p u t h is b o d yin ac lo s e t. A t aro u n d 2 :3 0 o r 3 a.m ., K ev in S w an ey arriv ed at C o o kan d M atzk e’s apa rtm e nt . S w a ne yw a s a16- y e a r - ol d di s hw a s he ra tthe r e s t aur a ntw he r e C ook5

a n d M a tz k e w o rk e d . C o o ko r ig in a llyto ldS w a n e yto g o a w a y , b u t th e n in v ite d h im i n. C ook ba rr i c a de d the doora f t e rt e l l i ng S w a ne ytha the a nd M a t z ke ha d drugs th e yw a n te d to g e t r id o f . C o o kto o kS w a n e yu p s ta ir s a n d s h o w e d h im C ruz - R a m os ’ s body . W he n the yr e turne d dow ns t a i r s , S w a ne yw a s c ry i ng. C ook a n d M a tz k e f

o r c e d S w a n e yto u n d r e s s a n d th e n g a g g e d h im a n d tie d h im to ac h a ir . M a t z ke t ol d C ook he w a nt e d no pa rtof a nyt ortur e , a nd w e ntt o the l i vi ng r oom and fel l as l ee p. A tar ou nd 4: 30 or 5 a. m . , C oo k w ok e M atzke. S w aneyre m ai ned t i ed and g agged and w as cryi ng . C oo k t ol d M atzke they had t o k i l l S w aney because he ( C oo k) had raped him. C oo k then strang l ed S w aney , and the tw o m en puthi s bodyi n the c l os e t . C ook a nd M a t z ke w e ntt o s l e e p. Ma t z k e we n tt o wo rkth a ta f t e rn o o n b u tr e tu rn e d h o m e af e w h o u r s l a t e r . He a nd C ook w e ntt o aba ra nd the n hung outw i th B y r on W a tki ns a nd othe rf r i e nds by the pool of

the i rapa rtm e ntc om pl e x, a s w e l l a s i n the i rapa rtm e nt . T he f ol l ow i ng m o rn in g , M a tz k e s h o w e d W a tk in s th e b o d ie s . W a tk in s c o n v in c e d M a tz k e to g o to the po l i ce . T he tw o m en w entt o the po l i ce departm ent , w here up on M atzke gave a v id e o tap e d s ta te m e n t. T he po l i ce w entt o C oo k and M atzke’ s apartm entand arr es t ed C oo k. A ft er r e c e i vi ng Mi r anda w a rni ngs , C ook s a i d, “ w e gott o pa rty i ng; thi ngs gotoutof ha nd; now tw o pe opl e a r e de a d. ” C ook the n s a i d, “ m yr oom m a t e ki l l e d one a nd I6

ki l l ed the other. ” H e s peci fi ca l l y a dm i tt ed chok i ng S w aneyt o d ea th. A ft er m aki ng these st at em ent s, C oo k ref used t o sayanythi ng further. B. Pr o c e dur a lba c k g r o und 1. P r oc e e d i n gs b e f

or e an d d u r i n g t r i al T he l ong pr oc e dur a l hi s t oryof thi s m a tt e ri s s e tf

orth i n C ook , 53 8 F . 3d at 1009- 14. A s r e l e va nthe r e , C ook a nd M a t z ke w e r e c ha r ge d w i th tw o c ount s of fi rs t -degree m urder, i ncl ud i ng a dea th p enal ty a l l egat i on un der A ri zona R evi se d S t atut e § 13 -703 . T he tri alcourtappo i nt ed att orney C l aude K el l er(her ei naft er

“ p r e tr i a l c o u n s e l ” ) t o r e p r e s e n tC o o k . A g r a n d j u ryr e tu rn e d a n i n d i c tm e n to n two co u n t s o f fi rst -d eg ree m u rd er ag ai n stb o th d efen d an t s. C ook w a s gi ve n tw o pr e tr i a l ps y c hol ogi c a l e va l ua t i ons . A f t e rahe a r i ng, the tri al courtconcl ud ed thatC oo k w as com pet entt o st and tri al . C oo k w as then g i ven a n a ddi t i ona l ne ur ol ogi c a l e xa m i na t i on, the r e s ul t s of w hi c h w e r e f

i l e d w i th the tri al court . A coup l e of m on ths l at er , C oo k fi l ed a pro se m ot i on t o w ai ve coun se l a nd ha ve hi s c ouns e l appoi nt e d a s a dvi s oryc ouns e l . D ur i ng the e ns ui ng he a r i ng, C ook a s ke d tha tthe tr i a l c ourt“ notappoi ntM r . K e l l e ra s m yl e ga l a dvi s or . ” C ook e x p l a i n e d , “ M r . K e l l e rh a s w o rk e d h a r d f o rmyd e f

e n s e ; c a r e s ab o u tth e o u t c o me o f mytr i a l . M yp e r s o n a l b e l i e f[ ] i s th a th e c a n n o ta d v i s e me a c c o r d i n g t o my de f e ns e . ” C ook a s ke d f

oras pe c i f

i c a tt orne y , butthe tr i a l c ourts a i d onl ys om e one7

e l s e w a s a va i l abl e , w hom C ook r e j e c t e d. T he tr i a l c ourte xpl a i ne d a tl e ngth the pe r i l s of s e l f - r e pr e s e nt a t i on, butC ook s t i l l w a nt e d t o pr oc e e d p ro se . T he court the n c onduc t e d e xt e ns i ve que s t i oni ng pur s ua ntt o Fa r e tta v . Ca lifo rn ia , 4 2 2 U . S. 8 0 6 , 8 3 5 ( 1 9 7 5 ) , a n d f

o u n d th a t C o o kk n o w in g ly , in te llig e n tly , a n d v o lu n ta r ily re l i nq ui shed hi s r i gh tt o cou nsel . T he courtgrant ed C oo k’ s m ot i on and app oi nt ed K e lle ra s C o o k ’s a d v is o ryc o u n s e l. T h is w a s tw o w e e k s b e f o r e tr ia l. M a tz k e e n te r e d in to as tip u la te d g u iltyp le aa n d w a s s e n te n c e d to 2 0 y e a r s in pr i s on. M a t z ke t e s t i f

i e d a ga i ns tC ook a tC ook’ s tr i a l . A tthe e nd of the tr i a l , the j uryde l i be r a t e d f

or77 m i nut e s be f

or e r e turni ng agui l tyve r di c ta ga i ns tC ook on b o th fi rst -d eg ree m u rd er co u n t s. F ol l ow i ng hi s c on vi ct i on , C oo k con t i nu ed t o repres enthi m se l f and pres ent ed no m i t i gat i ng evi dence atthe se nt enci ng hear i ng , st at i ng thatthe “ [o] nl y s ent ence I w i l l a c c e ptf

r om thi s C ourta tthi s t i m e i s the pe na l tyof de a th, y ourH onor . I ha ve n o th in g f u rth e r .” T h e c o u rt r e v ie w e d th e p r e s e n te n c e r e p o rt, th e m e n ta l h e a lth eval uat i on s, the S t at e’ s s ent enci ng m em orandu m , a l ett erfr om C oo k, the tri al e vi de nc e , a nd m a tt e r s f

r om he a r i ngs i n the c a s e . T he c ourtf ound thr e e a ggr a va t i ng fa ct ors ( the m urders w er e m ul t i pl e, w er e c om m i tt ed for pecuni ary gai n, and w er e c om m i tt e d i n a n e s pe c i a l l yhe i nous , c rue l , orde pr a ve d m a nne r ) . T he c ourtf ound8

n o m itig a tin g f

a c to r s to o f

f s e t th e s e a g g r a v a tin g f

a c to r s a n d s e n te n c e d C o o kto de a th. 2. S t at e P C R an d f e d e r alh ab e as p r oc e e d i n gs C ook, w i th the he l p of

al a w y e r( he r e i na f

t e r“ appe l l a t e c ouns e l ” ) , f i l e d a di re ctappeal i n w hi ch he rai se d 1 6 i ss ues. C oo k argued, am on g o ther thi ng s, that the tr i a l c ourtha d e rr e d i n a l l ow i ng hi m t o w a i ve hi s appoi nt e d tr i a l c ouns e l . T he A r iz o n aS u p r e m e C o u rt r e je c te d th is c la im , e x p la in in g th a t “[ w ]h ile C o o kc e rta in ly la c k e d ala w y e r ’s s k ills , th e r e c o r d d e m o n s tr a te s th a t h e w a s in te lle c tu a lly c o m p e te n t, u n d e r s to o d th e tr ia l p r o c e s s , a n d w a s c ap ab le o f m a k in g — a n d d id m ake— ra t i on al deci si on s i n m anagi ng hi s c as e. ” C ook , 8 2 1 P .2 d a t 7 3 9 . W h ile h is ap p e a l w a s p e n d in g , C o o kf ile d am o tio n to r e lie v e h is ap p e lla te c o u n s e l f o ra lle g e d lyf

a ilin g to c o m m u n ic a te w ith h im a n d e x p la in th e is s u e s to h i m. Co o ka l s o f

i l e d , p u r s u a n tt o A r i z o n aRu l e o f Cr i mi n a l Pr o c e d u r e 3 2 , aPCR p e titio n a s s e rtin g I A C b yh is p r e tr ia l c o u n s e l. C o o k ’s ap p e lla te c o u n s e l m o v e d to w ith d r a w o r , in th e a lte rn a tiv e , to h a v e th e A r iz o n aS u p r e m e C o u rt c la r if yh is st atus. T he A ri zona S up re m e C ou rtdeni ed the m ot i on t o w i thd raw and i ss ued an o r d e rf i n d i n g Co o k ’ s PCR p e t i t i o n p r e ma tu r e , ap p o i n t i n g n e w c o u n s e l f o rPCR p r o c e e d in g s , a n d g r a n tin g a d d itio n a l tim e to f ile a n a m e n d e d P C R p e titio n , if n ec es sa ry . A b o u t n in e m o n th s later , th e A rizo n a S u p re m e C o u rt af firm ed C o o k ’sD uri ng on e of the evi dent i ary heari ng s, C oo k’ s s ec on d P C R coun se l 2 el i ci t ed t es t i m on y abo utpretri al coun se l ’ s a ct i on s i n p re pari ng C oo k’ s c as e, al l eg ed i n ex p eri en ce w i th cap i t al cases an d ap p l i cab l e l aw , an d p erso n al p ro b l em s. 9 c o n v ic tio n a n d s e n te n c e . C ook , 8 2 1 P. 2 d a t7 5 6 . Th e U n i t e dSt a t e s Su p r e me C o u rt d e n ie d C o o k ’s p e titio n f o rc e rtio r a r i. C ook

v . A r i z ona , 50 6 U . S . 84 6 (19 92 ). In S ept em ber 199 3, C oo k fi l ed, throu gh coun se l John W i l l i am s ( here i naft er “f ir s t P C R c o u n s e l” ) , a“S u p p le m e n t to P e titio n f o rP o s t- C o n v ic tio n R e lie f ” in A r i z onaS upe r i orC ourt . T he s uppl e m e nt a l pe t i t i on r a i s e d ni ne c l a i m s , tw o of w h ic h w e r e th a t C o o k ’s p r e tr ia l c o u n s e l w a s in e f f e c tiv e in f

a ilin g to in v e s tig a te a n d p r e p a r e f

o rtr ia l a n d s e n te n c in g , a n d th a t th is in e f f e c tiv e n e s s f

o r c e d C o o kto ch o o se b etw ee n in ef

fe ctiv e c o u n se l an d se lf-r ep re se n tati o n . In M ay 1 9 9 4 , C o o k ’s f i r s tP C R c ouns e l m ove d t o w i thdr a w due t o ac onf l i c ta nd the c ourtappoi nt e d a ne w a tt orne y , M i c ha e l T e rr i bi l e ( he r e i na f t e r“ s e c ond P C R c ouns e l ” ) . I n va r i ous ru l i n g s i s s u e d i n l a t e 1 9 9 4 a n d e a r l y1 9 9 5 , th e tr i a l c o u rt

— w h i c h w a s th e s a me co u rt th at p re sid ed o v erC o o k ’s trial an d se n ten cin g — re jected so m e o f C o o k ’s s uppl e m e nt a l P C R i s s ue s a s pr e c l ude d ornotc ol or abl e a nd de ni e d the othe r s on thei r m er i t s a ft erho l di ng evi dent i ary heari ng s t o rec ei ve any new l y di sc ov er ed evi dence. 2 I n de ny i ng C ook’ s pr e tr i a l I A C a nd “ f or c e d” s e l f

- r e pr e s e nt a t i on c l a i m s , the c o u rt e x p la in e d th a t C o o kf a ile d to s h o w p r e

ju d ic e o rd e f

ic ie n t p e r f

o rm a n c e .10

S peci fi ca l l y: (1) there w as “ no evi dence of w i tness es w ho coul d h ave been ca l l ed th a t w o u ld h a v e te s tif

ie d in aw a yth a t w a s b e n e f ic ia l” to C o o k ; ( 2 ) th e c o u rt c o u ld on l y s pecul at e a s t o w hatm i gh thave happ ened attri al had C oo k n otre pres ent ed hi m s e l f orha d C ook’ s pr e tr i a l c ouns e l “ done abe tt e rj ob” ; ( 3) C ook di d nots how a nys pe c i f

i c de f i c i e nc y , a nd no c a s e r e qui r e d the j udge t o i nqui r e i nt o the e f f e c tiv e n e s s o f

ap p o in te d c o u n s e l in d e te rm in in g w h e th e raw a iv e ro f c o u n s e l is k n o w i n g , i n t el l i g en t , an d v o l u n t ary. C ook, thr ough hi s s e c ond P C R c ouns e l , f i l e d am ot i on f

orr e he a r i ng r e g a r d in g s e v e r a l o f

th e c la im s a s s e rte d in h is s u p p le m e n ta l P C R p e titio n , a s w e ll a s o n e n e w c l a i m. Co o ks o u g h tr e h e a r i n g o f h i s s e l f - r e p r e s e n t a t i o n /w a i v e rc l a i m, butnotof

hi s pr e tr i a l I A C c l a i m . T he c ourtde ni e d the m ot i on f orr e he a r i ng. C ook the n f i l e d ape t i t i on f

orr e vi e w tha ts i m pl ys t a t e d, “ D a ni e l W a y ne C ook, thr ough coun se l and p ursuantt o R ul e 32. 9 o f the A ri zona R ul es of C ri m i nal P roce du re , pet i t i on s the A ri zona S up re m e C ou rtfor r evi ew . ” T he A ri zona S up re m e C ou rt de ni e d the pe t i t i on a nd the U ni t e d S t a t e s S upr e m e C ourtde ni e d C ook’ s pe t i t i on f or c e rtio r a r i. C ook

v . A r i z ona , 51 9 U . S . 10 13 (199 6). In Janu ary 199 7, C oo k fi l ed a f eder al habeas pet i t i on i n A ri zona di stri ct court . T he courtappo i nt ed habeas c ou nsel and g rant ed C oo k’ s m ot i on t o p roce edT h e c o u rt o r ig in a llyap p o in te d a n a tto rn e yf r o m th e f e d e r a l p u b lic 3 d efen d er’ s o ffi ce, b u th e w as rep l aced b y a C ri m i n al Ju st i ce A ct(“ C JA ”) att o rn ey. T h a t C J A a tto rn e yc o n tin u e s to r e p r e s e n t C o o k , in c lu d in g in th is ap p e a l. 11 in fo rm a p a u

p e r is . C oo k ass ert ed 21 cl ai m s f or re l i ef , am on g them the cl ai m that 3 h is d e c is io n to w a iv e c o u n s e l w a s n o t k n o w in g , in te llig e n t, a n d v o lu n ta ry , a s w e ll a s th e c la im th a t h is p r e tr ia l c o u n s e l w a s in e f f e c tiv e b yf

a ilin g to in v e s tig a te m i t i g at i n g ev i d en ce. T h e d i stri ctco u rtd en i ed C o o k ’ s w ai v er cl ai m o n i t s m eri t s, h o ld in g th a t n o c le a r lye s tab lis h e d f e d e r a l la w r e q u ir e d th e s ta te tr ia l c o u rt to i nq ui re i nt o C oo k’ s di ss at i sf ac t i on w i th p re tri alcoun se l ’ s per form ance before a llo w in g h im to w a iv e r e p r e s e n ta tio n . C o o k v. Sch ri ro , N o . 9 7 - c v - 0 0 1 4 6 - RCB, 2 0 0 6 W L 8 4 2 2 7 6 , at * 6 -1 0 (D . A riz. M ar . 2 8 , 2 0 0 6 ) ( u np u b li sh ed ). A s f o r C o o k ’s in d e p e n d e n t p r e tr ia l I A C c la im , th e c o u rt h e ldth a t th is c la im w a s p r o c e d u r a lly barr ed because C oo k h ad fa i l ed t o p re se rve i ti n h i s m ot i on for r eheari ng . U nd er th e v e r s io n o f

A r iz o n aR u le o f

C r im in a l P r o c e d u r e 3 2 .9 th a t ap p lie d to C o o k , [a] n y p arty ag g ri ev ed b y a fi n al d eci si o n o f th e tri al co u rti n th ese pr oc e e di ngs m a y , w i thi n t e n da y s a f t e rthe rul i ng of

the c ourt , m ove the c ourtf

orar e he a r i ng s e tt i ng f

orth i n de t a i l the gr ounds f or be l i e vi ng the c ourte rr e d. A r i z . R . C r i m . P . 32. 9( a ) . M or e ove r , “ [ o] n de ni a l of am ot i on f

orr e he a r i ng a ny pa rtya ggr i e ve d m a ype t i t i on the appr opr i a t e appe l l a t e c ourtf orr e vi e w of

the ac t i on s of the tri al court . ” I d. R . 32. 9( c ) . T hus , ape t i t i one rc oul d ( butw a s notT h e A r iz o n aS u p r e m e C o u rt c h a n g e d R u le 3 2 .9 in J u n e 1 9 9 2 to e lim in a te 4 the re qu i re m entfor adet ai l ed m ot i on for r eheari ng . H ow ever , the courtm ade that change appli cabl e onl y t o d ef endant s s ent ence d aft erD ec em ber 1, 19 92 , w el l af t er C o o k ’s s e n te n c in g . C o o k ’s f ir s t P C R c o u n s e l “r e a liz e d th a t th e f o rm e rR u le 3 2 .9 gove rne d the c a s e a nd f i l e d a n unoppos e d m ot i on f orr e he a r i ng t o c onf

orm t o the ol d rul e. ” C ook , 538 F . 3d a t1026- 27. 12 r e qui r e d t o) s e e kr e h e a r in g , b u t d o in g s o w a s ap r e r e q u is ite to f u rth e rr e v ie w . M oreover, fa i l ure t o fi l e a detai led m o t i o n f o rr e h e a r i n g wa i v e d f

u rth e rr e v i e w. 4 See S ta te v. G a u se , 5 4 1 P . 2 d 3 9 6 , 3 9 7 ( A r iz . 1 9 7 5 ) ; S ta te v . B o r tz , 821 P . 2d 236, 2 3 9 ( A r iz . C t. A p p . 1 9 9 1 ) . O n app ea l i n 2 00 8, w e a ff i rm ed the di stri ctcourt ’ s rul i ng s. A s r el evanthere , w e c o n c lu d e d th a t “th e s ta te tr ia l c o u rt’s d e te rm in a tio n th a t C o o k ’s w a iv e ro f h is ri gh tt o cou nsel w as vo l un t ary . . . w as no tobj ec t i vel y unrea sonabl e. ” C ook , 538 F .3 d a t 1 0 1 5 . W e a ls o a f f irm e d th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s ru lin g th a t C o o k ’s c la im th a t h is pretri al coun se l w as i neff ec t i ve w as procedural l y barre d. S peci fi ca l l y, w e hel d that

“ prec l usi on for f

ai l ure t o p re se rve the i ss ue on m ot i on for r eheari ng w as prop er ” un der A ri zona R ul es of C ri m i nal P roce du re 32 . 2(a) (3) and 32 . 9(c) , and thu s that

“ C oo k m ustdem on stra t e c ause and p re j ud i ce i n o rdert o excuse hi s proce du ra l defaul t . ” I

d. a t1027 ( c i t i ng C ole m an v . T hom ps on , 5 0 1 U .S . 7 2 2 , 7 5 0 ( 1 9 9 1 ) ) . C o o ka r g u e d th a t h e h a d c au s e b e c au s e h is s e c o n d P C R c o u n s e l w a s in e f f e c tiv e in f a i l i ng t o pr e s e rve hi s pr e tr i a l I A C c l a i m i n the m ot i on f orr e he a r i ng a nd the13

pet i t i on for r evi ew . W e r ej ec t ed thi s argum ent , ci t i ng a l on g l i ne of S up re m e C ou rt a nd N i nth C i r c ui tc a s e s f orthe pr opos i t i on tha tI A C i n pos t - c onvi c t i on pr oc e e di ngs d o e s n o t e s tab lis h c au s e . I d. a t 1 0 2 7 - 2 8 ; s e e, e . g. , C ole m an , 501 U . S . a t752- 53; se e al so Sexton v. C ozner , 6 7 9 F . 3 d 1 1 5 0 , 1 1 5 8 (9 th C i r. 2 0 1 2 ) (d i scu ssi n g th ese c a s e s ) ; T ow e r yv . R y an , 6 7 3 F .3 d 9 3 3 , 9 4 1 ( 9 th C ir .) ( p e rc u r ia m ) , ce rt. deni ed , 132 S . C t . 17 38 (201 2) (s am e) . W e a l so ci t ed the fa ctthatC oo k h ad no ri gh tt o cou nsel a t th e m o tio n f

o rr e h e a r in g s ta g e . C ook , 538 F . 3d a t1027 ( c i t i ng S ta te v . Sm ith , 910 P . 2d 1, 4 ( A r i z . 1996) ( “ A f t e rc ouns e l orthe pr o pe rde f e nda nts ubm i t s the po st -c on vi ct i on pet i t i on t o the courtand the tri al courtm akes i t s r equi re d revi ew a n d d is p o s itio n , c o u n s e l’s o b lig a tio n s a r e a t a n e n d .” ) ) . B e c au s e C o o kw a s u n ab le to s h o w c au s e , w e d id n o t c o n s id e rw h e th e rh e s u f f e r e d p r e ju d ic e . I d. a t 1 0 2 8 n .1 3 . W e a f f i rme d th e d i s tr i c tc o u rt ’ s d e n i a l o f Co o k ’ s h ab e a s p e t i t i o n , a n d th e Su p r e me C o u rt d e n ie d C o o k ’s p e titio n f o rc e rtio r a r i. I

d. a t 1 0 3 1 ; C o o k v. Sch ri ro , 5 5 5 U . S. 11 41 (200 9).In F ebruary20 09 , C oo k sou gh t , and w e grant ed, re -app oi ntm entof an 5 att o rn ey fro m th e fed eral d efen d er’ s o ffi ce t o rep resen tC o o k , al o n g w i th h i s C JA a tto rn e y , in p o te n tia l f

u rth e rp r o c e e d in g s . See i n f ra . S peci fi ca l l y, C oo k sou gh tre appo i ntm entof the fe dera l defe nd er ’ s off i ce on the grou nd s thathi s C JA att orney had “ never l i t i gat ed a death p enal ty c as e throu gh exec ut i on , ” and thatthe fe dera l d ef en d er ’s o ff

ice w o u ldh elp h is C JA atto rn ey : (1 ) m o u n t a ch allen g e to A rizo n a’s l e tha l i nj e c t i on pr ot oc ol ; ( 2) a s s e rtune xhaus t e d c l a i m s “ ba s e d on c ha nge s i n r e c e nt st at e and fe dera l l aw ”; (3) provi de fund i ng for am ent al heal th exp ertt o exp l ore “ i s s ue s r e l a t e d t o c om pe t e nc y ” ; ( 4) f i l e as e c ond ors uc c e s s i ve habe a s pe t i t i on ba s e d on ne w c ons t i tut i ona l rul e s of l a w oras how i ng of

a c tua l i nnoc e nc e ; a nd ( 5) p u r s u e a n yd u e p r o c e s s v io la tio n s th a t m ig h t o c c u rd u r in g c le m e n c yp r o c e e d in g s . C o o kd id n o t a r g u e th a t h e n e e d e d th e f e d e r a l d e f

e n d e r ’s e x p e rtis e o rr e s o u r c e s to co n d u ctan i n v est i g at i o n i n t o m i t i g at i n g ci rcu m st an ces. 14 3. A d d i t i on alp os t - t r i alp r oc e e d i n gs I n J a nua ry2009, a f

t e rthe S upr e m e C ourtde ni e d c e rt i or a r i , the S t a t e of A r iz o n as o u g h t aw a rr a n t o f e x e c u tio n . T h e A r iz o n aS u p r e m e C o u rt d e c lin e d to

5 issu e a w arra n t b ec au se li ti g atio n re g ar d in g th e c o n stitu ti o n ality o f A rizo n a’s l e tha l - i nj e c t i on pr ot oc ol w a s the n unde rw a y . C ook f i l e d as e c ond P C R pe t i t i on chal l engi ng the l ethal -i nj ec t i on prot ocol , bu tal so as se rt i ng thathi s pre tri al coun se l w a s i ne f f e c t i ve i n f

a i l i ng t o i nve s t i ga t e m i t i ga t i ng e vi de nc e . I n D e c e m be r2009, the tri al courtdeni ed C oo k’ s s ec on d P C R pet i t i on af t erconcl ud i ng , am on g o ther thi ng s, thatC oo k’ s pre tri al IA C cl ai m had b ee n p re vi ou sl y l i t i gat ed and there fore w as b arre d . In S ep tem b er2 0 1 0 , th e A rizo n a S u p re m e C o u rt d en ied C o o k ’s pe t i t i on f orr e vi e w , a nd the S t a t e onc e a ga i n s oughtaw a rr a ntof e xe c ut i on.A s partof hi s Rul e 60(b)(6) m ot i on , C oo k sub m i tt ed addi t i on al 6 d ecl arat i o n s co n t ai n i n g si m i l ar st at em en t s. 15 I n N ove m be r2010, w hi l e the S t a t e ’ s w a rr a ntr e que s tw a s pe ndi ng, C ook fi l ed a thi rd P C R pet i t i on se eki ng re l i ef on the grou nd thatnew l y di sc ov er ed i nform at i on l i kel y w ou l d h ave l ed the ori gi nal st at e tri al courtt o i m po se a s ent ence o th e rth a n d e a th . See A r i z . R . C r i m . P . 32. 1( e ) , ( h) ( a l l ow i ng P C R r e l i e f on gr ounds of

ne w l ydi s c ove r e d e vi de nc e ) . S pe c i f i c a l l y , ba s e d on a n i nve s t i ga t i on co n d u cted b y h is fe d er al d ef en d er , C o o kp re se n ted th e d ec lara ti o n s o f C o o k ’s m o th e r , s is te r , a n d af

o rm e rg r o u p h o m e p a r e n t, a ll o f w h o m k n e w C o o ka s ac h ild ora dol e s c e nt . T he s e de c l a r a t i ons doc um e nt e d al ong hi s t oryof phy s i c a l a nd s e xua l abus e byf

a m i l ym e m be r s , s e xua l abus e bythe gr oup hom e pa r e nt , aga ng r ape byC ook’ s pe e r s i n the gr oup hom e w he n C ook w a s f i f t e e n y e a r s ol d, a nd C ook’ s ow n drug a nd a l c ohol abus e . S e ve r a l of the de c l a r a nt s i ndi c a t e d tha tno o n e h ad co n t act ed th em p rev i o u sl y. 6 In addi t i on , C oo k p re se nt ed the decl ar at i on of a psy chi atri stw ho re vi ew ed in f o rm a tio n f

r o m C o o k ’s tr ia l a n d th e d e c la r a tio n s a n d r e c o r d s d e s c r ib e d ab o v e . T he ps y c hi a tr i s topi ne d tha t , a tthe t i m e C ook c om m i tt e d the m ur de r s , C ook suff er ed fr om po st -traum at i c s tre ss di sorder(“ P T S D ”) , “ organi c m ent al sy nd rom e, notothe rw i s e s pe c i f

i e d, ” a nd a l c ohol a nd a m phe t a m i ne i nt oxi c a t i on. A l e tt e ra nd aC oo k ass ert ed i n h i s Rul e 60(b)(6) m ot i on thatal l of thi s new l y di sc ov er ed 7 m i t i ga t i on i nf

orm a t i on coul d n othave been prese nt ed i n C oo k’ s 199 7 p et i t i on for habeas c orpus , be c aus e i tw a s notunt i l the F e de r a l P ubl i c D e f e nde rf orthe D is tr ic t o f

A r iz o n aw a s ap p o in te d c o - c o u n s e l f o rC o o kin 2 0 0 9 , w ith i t s f i nanci al and p er sonn el re source s t o carryou tthe neces sary in v e s tig a tiv e a n d p r o f

e s s io n a l in v e s tig a tio n s a n d e v a lu a tio n s , th a t a pr ope rm i t i ga t i on i nve s t i ga t i on c oul d be a c c om pl i s he d. I tw a s i n the p r o c e s s o f

p r e p a r in g f

o rc le m e n c y. . . th a t f

a c ts w e r e u n c o v e r e d to supp ortan appl i ca t i on such as i s m ade here . 16 decl ar at i on fr om a c l i ni ca l psyc ho l og i sthi gh l i gh t ed w hatthe psyc ho l og i stbel i eved w ere d efi ci en ci es i n C o o k ’ s p retri al co m p et en cy ev al u at i o n s. F i nal l y, C oo k p re se nt ed the decl ar at i on of E ri c L ar se n, the l ea d p rose cut or at C ook’ s tr i a l i n 1988. L a r s e n de c l a r e d tha tC ook’ s pr e tr i a l c ouns e l w a s a tthe “ l ow e nd of the c om pe t e nc ys c a l e ” a nd “ di d nots pe a k w i th m e aboutm i t i ga t i ng circ u m stan ce s.” L ar se n also d ec lare d th at: h e r ev iew ed th e d ec lara ti o n s o f C o o k ’s re l at i ves; “ [e ] vi dence of [Co ok ’ s] brai n d am age and po st -traum at i c s tre ss di sorder w a s pr e s e nta tthe t i m e tha tM r . C ook w a s a rr e s t e d a nd tr i e d f orm ur de r ” ; a nd “[h ]ad I b ee n in fo rm ed o f th is m it ig atin g in fo rm atio n re g ar d in g M r. C o o k ’s s e ve r e l yabus i ve a nd tr aum a t i c c hi l dhood a nd hi s m e nt a l i l l ne s s e s , I w oul d not h a v e s o u g h t th e d e a th p e n a ltyin th is c a s e .” 7W e ta k e ju d ic ia l n o tic e o f th is d e c is io n . See H

older v . H

older , 305 F . 3d 8 85 4, 86 6 (9th C i r. 20 02 ) ( t aki ng j ud i ci al no t i ce of st at e j ud i ci al op i ni on ). 17 I n J a n u a ry2 0 1 1 , th e tr ia l c o u rt d e n ie d C o o k ’s th ir d P C R p e titio n . Stat e v . C ook , N o. C R - 9358 ( M a r i c opaC o. S up. C t . J a n. 27, 2011) . T he j udge

— w ho 8 a ga i n w a s the s a m e j udge w ho pr e s i de d ove rC ook’ s tr i a l a nd se nt enci ng — consi dere d C oo k’ s a dd i t i on al i nform at i on and exp l ai ned thati tei ther r e f l e c t e d i nf

orm a t i on the c ourta l r e a dykne w i n 1988 orw a s i rr e l e va ntpos t - hoc s pe c ul a t i on. T hus , the j udge s t i l l w oul d ha ve i m pos e d the de a th pe na l ty . T he j u d g e a l s o c o n c l u d e d th a tCo o kh a d n o tb e e n d i l i g e n ti n s e c u r i n g h i s PTSD d i ag n o si s. T he A r i z onaS upr e m e C ourtthe n i s s ue d aw a rr a ntof e xe c ut i on f

orA pr i l 5, 2 0 1 1 . C o o kf

ile d ap e titio n f

o rr e v ie w to th a t c o u rt o f th e tr ia l c o u rt’s d e n ia l o f h is th ir d P C R p e titio n . A m o n g o th e rth in g s , h e a r g u e d th a t h is la c ko f d ilig e n c e in d ev elo p in g th e P T S D d iag n o sis w as th e r es u lto f h is firs t P C R co u n se l’ s i ne f f e c t i ve ne s s . T he A r i z onaS upr e m e C ourts um m ar i l yde ni e d r e vi e w . C ook fi l ed a pet i t i on for c ert i orar i t o the U ni t ed S t at es S up re m e C ou rtand sou gh ta s t ay of e xe c ut i on pe ndi ng the C ourt ’ s r e s ol ut i on of the pe t i t i on i n M

art i nez . T he C ou rt gr a nt e d as t a ype ndi ng the r e s ol ut i on of C ook’ s c e rt i or a r i pe t i t i on. C oo k v . A r i z ona , 13 1 S . C t . 18 47 (201 1).18

4 . M artin ez I n M a r c h 2012, the S upr e m e C ourtde c i de d M art i nez . T h e C o u rt e s tab lis h e d a n e q u itab le , r a th e rth a n c o n s titu tio n a l, “n a rr o w e x c e p tio n ” to th e ru le pr e vi ous l ya nnounc e d i n C ole m an : W here , un der s t at e l aw , cl ai m s of i neff ec t i ve as si st ance of tri al c o u n s e l m u s t b e r a is e d in a n in itia l- r e v ie w c o lla te r a l p r o c e e d in g , a pr oc e dur a l de f

aul tw i l l notba raf

e de r a l habe a s c ourtf

r om he a r i ng a s ubs t a nt i a l c l a i m of

i ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e a ttr i a l i f , i n the i ni t i al -r evi ew col l at er al proceedi ng , there w as no coun se l or coun se l i n thatproceedi ng w as i neff ec t i ve. M art i nez , 13 2 S . C t . at13 20 . T hu s, un der M art i nez , a p et i t i o n er m ay est ab l i sh cause f or procedural defaul tof a tri al IA C cl ai m , w here the st at e ( l i ke A ri zona) r e qui r e d the pe t i t i one rt o r a i s e tha tc l a i m i n c ol l a t e r a l pr oc e e di ngs , by de m ons tr a t i ng tw o thi ngs : ( 1) “ c ouns e l i n the i ni t i a l - r e vi e w c ol l a t e r a l pr oc e e di ng, w he r e the c l a i m s houl d ha ve be e n r a i s e d, w a s i ne f f e c t i ve unde rthe s t a nda r ds of Str i c kland v . W

as hi ngton , 466 U . S . 668 ( 1984) , ” a nd ( 2) “ the unde r l y i ng i neff ec t i ve-a ss i st ance -of- tri al -c ou nsel cl ai m i s asubst ant i al on e, w hi ch i s t o say thatthe pri soner m ustdem on stra t e thatthe cl ai m has s om e m er i t . ” M art i nez , 132 S . C t . a t1318. I m m e di a t e l ya f

t e rde c i di ng M

art i nez , th e S u p re m e C o u rt d en ied C o o k ’s c e rtio r a r i p e titio n , C ook v . A r i z ona , 1 3 2 S . C t. 1 7 9 0 ( 2 0 1 2 ) , a n d th e S ta te s o u g h t a ne w w a rr a ntof

e xe c ut i on. C ook f

i l e d am ot i on be f

or e the S upr e m e C ourtf orl e a ve19

to f ile a n u n tim e lyp e titio n f o rr e h e a r in g f

r o m th e C o u rt’s 2 0 0 9 d e n ia l o f h is pe t i t i on f orc e rt i or a r i i n the f

e de r a l habe a s pr oc e e di ngs , ur gi ng ar e m a nd t o a l l ow th e N i n th C i rcu i tt o ap p l y M art i nezt o C o o k ’ s p r e tr i a l an d P C R I AC c l a i m s . On M a y2 9 , 2 0 1 2 , th e C o u rt d e n ie d C o o k ’s m o tio n . C o o k v. Sch ri ro , 132 S . C t . 2709 (201 2). 5. C u r r e n t p r oc e e d i n gs O n J une 5, 2012, C ook f i l e d i n A r i z onadi s tr i c tc ourtthe R ul e 60( b) m ot i on tha tunde r l i e s thi s appe a l . O n J une 12, 2012, the A r i z onaS upr e m e C ourti s s ue d a w a rr a ntof

e xe c ut i on f

orA ugus t8, 2012. C ook f i l e d am ot i on f

ors t a yof

e xe c ut i on pe ndi ng the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s di s pos i t i on of hi s R ul e 60( b) ( 6) m ot i on. O n J ul y9, 2012, the di s tr i c tc ourtde ni e d C ook’ s m ot i ons . A ppl y i ng the s i x - f a c t o rt e s tf

r o m P he l ps v . A lam e i da , 5 6 9 F .3 d 1 1 2 0 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ) ; see a l so L op ez , 6 7 8 F .3 d a t 1 1 3 5 - 3 7 , th e c o u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t M art i nezd o e s n o t c o n s titu te a n “ e xtr a or di na ryc i r c um s t a nc e ” j us t i f y i ng r e l i e f

unde rR ul e 60( b) . A l though c e rt a i n f a c t or s f a vor e d gr a nt i ng r e l i e f

, othe r s — na m e l yf

i na l i ty , c om i ty , a nd the de gr e e of c onne c t i on be tw e e n C ook’ s c l a i m s a nd M art i nez— di d n ot . F urtherm ore, the courthel d, C oo k fai l ed t o sho w thathi s und er l yi ng pretri al IA C cl ai m w as subst ant i al , and there fore he coul d n otes t abl i sh cause und er M art i nezf o rh is p r o c e d u r a l d e f

au lt.20

C ook t i m e l yappe a l s the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s or de rde ny i ng hi s R ul e 60( b) ( 6) m o tio n . C o o ka ls o s e e k s as ta yo f h is e x e c u tio n f

r o m th is c o u rt. DI S CUS S I ON A . C oo k ’s R u l e 60(b )( 6) m oti on i s n ot a sec on d or su cc es sive p et i ti on u n d er 28 U . S . C . § 2 24 4(b ). A R ul e 60( b) ( 6) m ot i on c ons t i tut e s as e c ond ors uc c e s s i ve habe a s pe t i t i on u n d e r2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 4 ( b ) w h e n it “s e e k s to a d d an e w g r o u n d ” f o rr e lie f o r“it a tta c k s th e f

e d e r a l c o u rt’s p r e v io u s r e s o lu tio n o f ac la im o n th e m e r its . . . . ” G onz alezv . Cr os by , 545 U . S . 524, 532 ( 2005) ( e m pha s i s i n or i gi na l ) . “ O n the m e r i t s ” m e a ns “ ade t e rm i na t i on tha tthe r e e xi s tordo note xi s tgr ounds e nt i t l i ng a pet i t i on ert o h abea s c orpu s r el i ef un der 28 U . S . C . §§ 22 54 (a ) and (d). ” I d. a t532 n. 4. A habeas pet i t i on erdo es no tse ek m er i t s r evi ew “ w hen h e m er el y a ss ert s that apr e vi ous rul i ng w hi c h pr e c l ude d am e r i t s de t e rm i na t i on w a s i n e rr or— f or e xa m pl e , ade ni a l f

ors uc h r e a s ons a s f

a i l ur e t o e xhaus t , pr oc e dur a l de f aul t , or st atut e- of-l i m i t at i on s bar . ” I d. W e a g r e e w ith th e d is tr ic t c o u rt th a t C o o k ’s R u le 6 0 ( b ) ( 6 ) m o tio n is n o t a ba rr e d s e c ond ors uc c e s s i ve habe a s pe t i t i on. I n hi s m ot i on, C ook s e e ks r e l i e f not fr om the di stri ctcourt ’ s rul i ng on the m er i t s of hi s c l ai m thathi s w ai ver of c ou nsel w as no tkn ow i ng , i nt el l i gent , and v ol un t ary bec ause hi s pre tri al coun se l w as in e f f e c tiv e , b u t f

r o m th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s ru lin g th a t h is s e p a r a te c la im th a t h isA l th o u g h th e tw o cl ai m s are i n t errel at ed , as w e d i scu ss i n f ra , they are 9 s u f f ic ie n tlys e p a r a te to e v a d e § 2 2 4 4 ( b ) ’s b a r . 21 coun se l w as i neff

ec t i ve for f

ai l i ng t o i nv es t i gat e and prepare a m i t i gat i on pl an w as p r o c e d u r a llyb a rr e d . T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt c o rr e c tlyin te rp r e te d th e s ta te m e n t in 9 C ook

— that“ the tri al court ’ s rul i ng s on C oo k’ s i neff ec t i ve as si st ance of coun se l cl ai m s w er e notcontraryt o o r unreas on abl e app l i ca t i on s of Str i c kland , ” C ook , 538 F .3 d a t 1 0 1 6

— a s b e in g lim ite d to th e w a iv e ris s u e . S e c tio n 2 2 4 4 ( b ) th e r e f o r e d id notba rthe di s tr i c tc ourtf r om c ons i de r i ng C ook’ s R ul e 60( b) ( 6) m ot i on. B . C oo ki s n ot en ti tl ed to re l i ef u n d er R u l e 60(b )( 6). W e r e vi e w the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s de ni a l of aR ul e 60( b) m ot i on f

orabus e of d is c r e tio n . D e layv . G ordon , 47 5 F . 3d 10 39 , 10 43 (9th C i r. 20 07 ). “ ‘ H ow ever , as the S upr e m e C ourthe l d i n G on zalez , 5 4 5 U .S . a t 5 3 6 - 3 8 , ap p e lla te c o u rts m a y , in the i rdi s c r e t i on, de c i de the m e r i t s of aR ul e 60( b) m ot i on i n the f i r s ti ns t a nc e on appeal . ’ ” L op ez , 678 F . 3d a t1135 ( quot i ng P he l ps , 5 6 9 F .3 d a t 1 1 3 4 - 3 5 ) . W hether w e c on du ctou r r evi ew i nd ependent l y or throu gh the l ens of the di stri ct c ourt ’ s di s c r e t i on, C ook’ s c l a i m t o R ul e 60( b) ( 6) r e l i e f f a i l s . E ve n i f

C ook otherw i se coul d “ show ‘ extra ordi naryci rc um st ance s’ j ust i fy i ng the re op eni ng of a fi nal j ud gm ent , ” G on zalez , 5 4 5 U .S . a t 5 3 5 ( c ita tio n s o m itte d ) , th e g r o u n d f o rh is m ot i on—M

art i nez— a f

f o r d s h im n o r e lie f

.A s di s c us s e d su p ra , w e pre vi ou sl y r ej ec t ed C oo k’ s c l ai m thathi s w ai ver 10 w a s n o t v o lu n ta ry . Se e C ook , 5 3 8 F .3 d a t 1 0 1 5 . 22 1. M artin ezd o es n o t a p p l y to C o o k ’s cl a i m s. I n Fa r e tta v . Ca lifo rn ia , 42 2 U . S . 80 6, 83 5 (19 75 ), the S up re m e C ou rt ex p l ai n ed th at , “ [w ] h en an accu sed m an ag es h i s o w n d efen se, h e rel i n q u i sh es, as a p u r e lyf a c tu a l m a tte r , m a n yo f

th e tr a d itio n a l b e n e f

its a s s o c ia te d w ith th e r ig h t to co u n sel . F o r th i s reaso n , i n o rd er t o rep resen th i m sel f, th e accu sed m u st

‘ k n o w i n g l y an d i n t el l i g en t l y’ fo rg o th o se rel i n q u i sh ed b en efi t s. ” T h e C o u rtal so e x p la in e d th a t, “w h a te v e re ls e m a yo rm a yn o t b e o p e n to h im o n ap p e a l, a de f e nda ntw ho e l e c t s t o r e pr e s e nthi m s e l f c a nnotthe r e a f

t e rc om pl a i n tha tthe qua l i tyof

hi s ow n de f

e ns e a m ount e d t o ade ni a l of ‘ e f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e of coun se l . ’ ” I

d. a t834 n. 46. I n thi s c a s e , C ook w a s r e pr e s e nt e d bypr e tr i a l c ouns e l f r om A ugus t1987 throu gh A pri l 19 88 . C oo k then m ade akn ow i ng , i nt el l i gent , and v ol un t ary w ai ver o f h is r ig h t to c o u n s e l, a n d r e p r e s e n te d h im s e lf a t h is tr ia l a n d s e n te n c in g h e a r in g . 10 E ve n i f C ook’ s pr e tr i a l c ouns e l pe r f orm e d de f

i c i e nt l ydur i ng the s e ve n m onths he rep resen t ed C o o k(a co n t en t i o n w e rej ectb el o w ), C o o kco u l d h av e co rrect ed th o seT hi s i s pa rt i c ul a r l ytrue be c aus e C ook a l r e a dykne w m uc h, i f nota l l , of

the 11 in f o rm a tio n h e n o w f

au lts h is c o u n s e l f

o rf a ilin g to d e v e lo p . I n d e e d , C o o ka d m its tha tm uc h of

hi s “ ne w ” m i t i ga t i on i nf orm a t i on w a s “ a va i l abl e ” be f or e a nd dur i ng hi s tr i a l i n 1988. C ook h a s t o a dm i tthi s : e ve n i f he w a s notc om pl e t e l ya w a r e of the m e nt a l i m pa i rm e nt s he now a l l e ge s he ha d a tthe t i m e he c om m i tt e d the m u r d e r s , h e p la in lyw a s a w a r e o f h is o w n tr o u b le d c h ild h o o d a n d a d o le s c e n c e . Y e tC ook appa r e nt l yne ve rt ol d hi s pr e tr i a l orP C R c ouns e l abouttha tm i t i ga t i on i nform at i on , never pres ent ed the i nform at i on du ri ng the penal ty phase of hi s tri al (i nst ea d say i ng thathe w ou l d acc epton l y the death p enal ty, and thathe had “ no thi ng further” ), and n everpres ent ed the i nform at i on i n h i s f eder al habeas p r o c e e d in g s , e v e n th o u g h h e h a s b e e n r e p r e s e n te d b yth e s a m e c o u n s e l s in c e h is habe a s pr oc e e di ngs c om m e nc e d i n 1997. C o o kp o in ts to th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s d e c is io n to d e n yh is r e q u e s t f o rf u n d in g in 2 0 0 0 . H o w e v e r , w h ile C o o ks a idh e n e e d e d f u n d s f o ra“d o c u m e n ts i nv es t i gat or/m i t i gat i on spec i al i st ” and a m ent al heal th exam i nat i on , hi s pre tri al I A C c la im w a s n o t a m o n g th e c la im s f o rw h ic h h e s a idh e n e e d e d th o s e th in g s . C ook a l s o s ugge s t s tha ti tw a s notunt i l he ha d the a ddi t i ona l r e s our c e s of the f e de r a l de f

e nde r ’ s of

f i c e i n 2009 “ tha tapr ope rm i t i ga t i on i nve s t i ga t i on c oul d be a c c o m p lis h e d .” B u t C o o kd id n o t s e e kth a t a s s is ta n c e to d e v e lo p am itig a tio n c a s e . See su p ra . F in a lly , e v e n if

th e s e e x p la n a tio n s h a d m e r it, th e yf a il to e x p la in C ook’ s i na c t i on be f

or e 2000. W e do n otho l d thata M art i nezc l a i m c a n ne ve rbe a va i l abl e t o a 12 de f e nda ntw ho r e pr e s e nt s hi m s e l f . H e r e , how e ve r , the c onduc tof the tr i a l a nd s e nt e nc i ng pha s e s , a nd C ook’ s s tr a t e gy , w e r e hi s ow n. 23 errors on ce he deci ded t o repres enthi m se l f. Far e t ta the r e f or e pr e c l ude s C ook 11 f r om c om pl a i ni ng aboutthe “ qua l i tyof hi s ow n de f

e ns e . ” I tf

ol l ow s tha tthe re as on gi ven b y the S up re m e C ou rtfor c re at i ng an except i on t o the C ole m an ru le i n M art i nez— “ [ t ] o pr ot e c tpr i s one r s w i th apot e nt i a l l yl e gi t i m a t e c l a i m of in e f f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f

tr ia l coun se l”

— d o e s n o t ap p lyto C o o k . M art i nez , 1 3 2 S. C t . at13 15 (e m ph as i s a dd ed). 1224

In sh o rt , C o o k ’ s tri al co u n sel w as, ath i s o w n req u est , C o o k . A cco rd i n g l y, he c a nnotc l a i m he w a s de ni e d e f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e of

c ouns e l . N orc a n C ook be prej ud i ce d b y P C R coun se l ’ s a l l eged fai l ures t o ass ertIA C by tri al coun se l w here , agai n, C oo k cho se t o forego tri al coun se l . N on ethel es s, even i f M art i nezap p lie d to C ook notw i ths t a ndi ng Fa r e tta , h e i s n o te n t i t l e d t o r e l i e f b e c au s e h i s p r e tr i a l I AC c la im is n o t s u b s ta n tia l. 2 . C o o k’ s u n d e r ly in g p r e t r ia l I A C c la im is n o t s u b s t a n t ia l. T o succe ed un der M

art i nez , ape t i t i one rm us t“ de m ons tr a t e tha tthe un derl yi ng i neff

ec t i ve-a ss i st ance -of- tri al -c ou nsel cl ai m i s asubst ant i al on e, w hi ch i s t o saythatthe pri soner m ustdem on stra t e thatthe cl ai m has s om e m er i t . ” M art i nez , 1 3 2 S . C t. a t 1 3 1 8 . “T h u s , M a rt i n ez r e qui r e s tha tape t i t i one r ’ s c l a i m of c aus e f orapr oc e dur a l de f

aul tbe r oot e d i n ‘ apot e nt i a l l yl e gi t i m a t e c l a i m of i neff ec t i ve as si st ance of tri al coun se l . ’ ” L op ez , 678 F . 3d a t1137- 38 ( quot i ng M art i nez , 1 3 2 S . C t. a t 1 3 1 5 ) ; se e al so M art i nez , 13 2 S . C t . at13 19 (“ W hen face d w i th the qu es t i on w hether there i s c ause for an app ar entdefaul t , a S t at e m ay a n s w e rth a t th e in e f

f e c tiv e - a s s is ta n c e - o f

- tr ia l- c o u n s e l c la im is in s u b s ta n tia l, i.e ., it d o e s n o t h a v e a n ym e r it o rth a t it is w h o llyw ith o u t f a c tu a l s up p o rt . . . .” ) . A s a n i ni t i a l m a tt e r , C ook a r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourtappl i e d t oo e xa c t i ng a st andard t o h i s pre tri al IA C cl ai m . In C oo k’ s vi ew , the courteval uat ed w hetherI n e x p la in in g th a t a n u n d e r ly in g tr ia l I A C c la im m u s t h a v e “s o m e m e r it,” 13 M art i nezr e f

e r e n c e d , n o t a s d ir e c t b u t a s g e n e r a llya n a lo g o u s s u p p o rt, Mi l ler-E l v. C o c kr e ll , 537 U . S . 322 ( 2003) , w hi c h s e t s f orth the s t a nda r ds f

ori s s ui ng ce rt i fi ca t es of appeal abi l i ty und er28 U . S . C . § 2 25 3. U nd er Mi l le r - El , ac e rtif ic a te o f ap p e a l ab i l i tys h o u l d i s s u e w h e r e th e “ r e s o l u t i o n [ o f ah ab e a s p e t i t i o n e r ’ s c l a i m] [i s] debat abl e a m on gstj uri st s of r ea son. ” I d. a t 3 3 6 . A c o u rt s h o u ldc o n d u c t a “g e n e r a l a s s e s s m e n t o f

th e [ ] m e r its ,” b u t s h o u ldn o t d e c lin e to is s u e ac e rtif ic a te “m e r e lyb e c au s e it b e lie v e s th e ap p lic a n t w ill n o t d e m o n s tr a te a n e n title m e n t to re l i ef . ” I d. a t 3 3 6 - 3 7 . 25 C ook w oul d s uc c e e d on hi s I A C cl ai m , ra ther than w hether hi s c l ai m w as “s ub s ta n tia l,” i.e ., “h a s s o m e m e r it.” M art i nez , 1 3 2 S . C t. a t 1 3 1 8 . W e d is a g r e e . 13 H e r e , w hi l e the di s tr i c tc ourte xpl a i ne d tha tC ook “ c a nnote s t abl i s h” de f i c i e nt perf orm ance or prej ud i ce , the courtw as cl ear thati tw as appl yi ng the “M art i nez t es tof subst ant i al i ty. ” L op ez , 678 F . 3d a t1138. C o o k ’s p r e tr ia l I A C c la im

— th a t h is p r e tr ia l c o u n s e l w a s in e f f e c tiv e in f a i l i ng t o i nve s t i ga t e a nd t o pr e pa r e am i t i ga t i on c a s e f ors e nt e nc i ng— doe s not m e e t M art i nez ’ s t es t . A n IA C cl ai m has m er i tw here coun se l ’ s “ perf orm ance w as u n reaso n ab l e u n d er p rev ai l i n g p ro fessi o n al st an d ard s, ” an d (2 ) “ th ere i s a r e a s o n ab le p r o b ab ilityth a t b u t f o rc o u n s e l’s u n p r o f

e s s io n a l e rr o r s , th e r e s u lt w o u ld have been di ff

er ent . ” H

a sa n v. G a la za , 254 F . 3d 1150, 1154 ( 9th C i r . 2001) ( c i t i ng Str i c kland , 46 6 U . S . at68 7-91 , 69 4). F ir s t, C o o kc a n n o t s h o w th a t h is p r e tr ia l c o u n s e l p e r f o rm e d d e f

ic ie n tly . C ook’ s l a w y e rr e pr e s e nt e d C ook f orj us ts e ve n m onths . D ur i ng tha tt i m e , the26

l a w y e robt a i ne d tw o m e nt a l he a l th e va l ua t i ons , hi r e d a n i nve s t i ga t orw ho in te rv ie w e d s e v e r a l w itn e s s e s , f ile d ah o s t o f

m o tio n s , a n d c au s e d th e tr ia l c o u rt to hol d ac om pe t e nc yhe a r i ng. I n pa rt i c ul a r , C ook’ s tw o m e nt a l he a l th e va l ua t i ons pr ovi de d de t a i l e d i nf

orm a t i on aboutC ook’ s ba c kgr ound, m e nt a l s t a t e a tthe t i m e of the m urders , and com pet encyt o st and tri al . T he fi rs teval uat i on , cond uct ed by D r. D a n ie l W y n k o o p , ap s y c h o lo g is t, d e s c r ib e d C o o k ’s u n s tab le h o m e lif e , ju v e n ile d el i n q u en cy, co n t i n u i n g d ru g an d al co h o l u se, sex u al ab u se, em o t i o n al i n st ab i l i ty, a nd r e pe a t e d hos pi t a l i z a t i ons f orde pr e s s i on. T he s e c ond e va l ua t i on, c onduc t e d by D r. E u g en e A l m er, a p sych i atri st , recap p ed m u ch o f th e fi rstev al u at i o n b u tal so d et ai l ed th e u n st ab l e l i fe o f C o o k ’ s p aren t s an d si b l i n g s, C o o k ’ s m ed i cal h i st o ry, and o ther t op i cs . D r. A l m erre vi ew ed D r. W ynko op ’ s e val uat i on , “ ext ensi ve” m edi ca l re cords, and a t aped i nt ervi ew of C oo k’ s m other and st epfa ther thatw as c o n d u c te d a f

te rth e m u r d e r s . A lth o u g h b o th d o c to r s e x p la in e d th a t C o o klik e ly h ad b een u si n g d ru g s an d al co h o l w h en h e co m m i tt ed th e m u rd ers, th ey al so e x p la in e d th a t h e d id n o t h a v e s ig n if ic a n t c o g n itiv e d e f

ic its o ro r g a n ic b r a in p r o b le m s . F in a lly , b o th d o c to r s c o n c lu d e d th a t C o o kw a s c o m p e te n t to a s s is t h is pr e tr i a l c ouns e l i n hi s de f e ns e , w i th D r . W y nkoop a ddi ng tha tC ook “ c oul d pr ovi de c o n s id e r ab le d a taif

h e s o c h o s e .”T hus , thi s i s notac a s e w he r e al a w y e rkne w hi s c l i e ntha d orm i ghtha ve 14 m itig a tin g c ir c u m s ta n c e s b u t d id n o th in g to in v e s tig a te th e m . C f . J am e s v . R

y an , 6 7 9 F .3 d 7 8 0 , 8 0 7 - 1 0 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 1 2 ) , pet i t i on f or ce rt. f i led , - - U . S. L. W . - - ( U . S. J u n e 2 8 , 2 0 1 2 ) ( N o . 1 2 - 1 1 ) ( f in d in g d e f

ic ie n t p e r f

o rm a n c e w h e r e c o u n s e l “f a ile d to c o n d u c t e v e n th e m o s t b a s ic in v e s tig a tio n o f J a m e s ’s s o c ia l h is to ry ” d e s p ite “ ob vi ou s i nd i ca t i on s” of a troub l ed chi l dh oo d and m ent al heal th p robl em s) . N ori s thi s ac a s e i n w hi c h c ouns e l di s c ove r e d i ni t i a l m i t i ga t i ng i nf orm a t i on a nd the n di d nothi ng f

urthe rde s pi t e c ont i nui ng t o r e pr e s e nthi s c l i e ntthr ough s e n te n c in g . C

f. W ig g in s v . Sm ith , 53 9 U . S . 51 0, 52 3-28 (200 3) (hol di ng that coun se l perf

orm ed defi ci ent l y w here they c on si dere d o nl y bas i c s oci al hi st ory doc um e nt s , c onduc t e d no f urthe ri nve s t i ga t i on a f

t e rl e a rni ng of

pos s i bl e l e a ds , a nd p r e s e n te d n o m itig a tin g in f o rm a tio n a t th e s e n te n c in g h e a r in g ) ; W i l l i am s v . T

ay lor , 529 U . S . 362, 370, 396 ( 2000) ( c ouns e l pe r f orm e d de f

i c i e nt l yw he r e he f

a i l e d t o, am on g o ther thi ng s, pres entkn ow n m i t i gat i ng i nform at i on du ri ng se nt enci ng ); Jam es , 679 F . 3d a t807- 10 ( f i ndi ng de f

i c i e ntpe r f

orm a nc e w he r e c ouns e l l e a rne d of s u b s ta n tia l m itig a tin g in f o rm a tio n f

o llo w in g g u iltyv e r d ic t b u t f a ile d to p r e s e n t it d u r in g th e s e n te n c in g h e a r in g ) . A s di sc usse d abo ve, C oo k’ s pre tri al coun se l t oo k act i on s thatw er e re as on abl e “ un der prevai l i ng profes si on al no rm s, ” Str i c kland , 466 U . S . a t688, e s p e c ia llyin lig h t o f

th e s h o rt p e r io d d u r in g w h ic h C o o ka llo w e d h is c o u n s e l to r e p r e s e n t h im . 27 A s the di s tr i c tc ourte xpl a i ne d, i ti s app ar entfr om these eval uat i on s that C ook’ s pr e tr i a l c ouns e l obt a i ne d e xt e ns i ve r e c or ds a nd ba c kgr ound i nf orm a t i on ab o u t h is c lie n t d u r in g th e lim ite d p e r io d d u r in g w h ic h h e r e p r e s e n te d C o o k . I t is a l s o appa r e nttha tthe s t a t e tr i a l c ourt , w hi c h r e vi e w e d the s e e va l ua t i ons , the pr e s e nt e nc e r e port , the S t a t e ’ s s e nt e nc i ng m e m or a ndum , al e tt e rf r om C ook, the tri al evi dence, and the t es t i m on y f rom evi dent i ary heari ng s, w as aw ar e of that i nform at i on w hen i ti m po se d the death p enal ty. G i ven these fa ct s, w e c anno tsay th atC o o k ’ s p retri al co u n sel p erfo rm ed d efi ci en t l y. 14E ve n though C ook ne ve rt ol d hi s c ouns e l abouthi s ow n ba c kgr ound, C ook 15 a r gue s tha tthe ne e d f

oram or e “ thor ough” i nve s t i ga t i on none the l e s s w a s m a de apparentby hi s pre tri al m ot i on for acom pet encyhear i ng , i n w hi ch he revea l ed that he had b ee n a pat i entattw o m ent al ho spi t al s and re ce i ved tre atm entata m ent al heal th cl i ni c, and thata c arhad run ov erhi s hea d. H ow ever , thati nform at i on w as m o r e f u llyd e v e lo p e d d u r in g , a n d a s ar e s u lt o f , th e d u a l c o m p e te n c ye v a lu a tio n s . A s f orthe a l l e ge d c a ra c c i de nt , D r . A l m e rdi s c us s e d i ti n hi s r e port , e ve n though the neurol og y e xp ertw ho exam i ned C oo k’ s hospi t al re cords f ou nd no re cord of a head i nj ury. W hen con fr on t ed w i th thi s f ac t , C oo k cl ai m ed hi s r ec ords had b ee n “ tr a ns f e rr e d. ” T he e xpe rta l s o c onduc t e d ane ur ol ogi c a l e xa m of C ook a nd c o n c lu d e d th a t it w a s “[ c ]o m p le te lyn o rm a l.” 28 O ur concl usi on i s bol st er ed by the un i qu e proceduralhi st ory of thi s c as e, and i n p art i cul arC oo k’ s ow n rol e i n i t . F i rs t , C oo k’ s pre tri al coun se l re pres ent ed hi m f ora tm os ts e ve n m onths , be f or e C ook s uc c e s s f

ul l ym ove d t o r e pr e s e nt hi m s e l f . I n doi ng s o, C ook a c c e pt e d r e s pons i bi l i tyf orpr e pa r i ng f

orhi s tr i a l a nd s e n te n c in g h e a r in g . S e c o n d , th e in f o rm a tio n C o o k ’s p r e tr ia l c o u n s e l a lle g e d ly f a ile d to d is c o v e ro rto d e v e lo p d u r in g th is s h o rt p e r io d w a s p e c u lia r lyw ith in C ook’ s know l e dge , buthe w i thhe l d tha ti nf orm a t i on f

r om hi s c ouns e l a nd the c ourt . I nde e d, D r . W y nkoop not e d tha tC ook c oul d pr ovi de c ons i de r abl e da t ai f he chose t o. Inst ea d, C oo k d ec l i ned t o p rovi de any i nform at i on , go i ng so far a s t o say a t s e n te n c in g th a t th e “[ o ]n lys e n te n c e I w ill a c c e p t f r o m th is C o u rt a t th is tim e is th e p e n a ltyo f

d e a th , y o u rH o n o r . I h a v e n o th in g f u rth e r .” 15 E ve n i f C ook’ s pr e tr i a l c ouns e l c oul d be f aul t e d f ornotde ve l opi ng i nform at i on thatC oo k w i thh el d, C oo k canno tshow thathe suff er ed any prej ud i ce29

as a r es ul tof thatal l eged err or. F i rs t , w hether C oo k’ s pre tri al coun se l had devel op ed further m i t i gat i on i nform at i on w ou l d h ave m ade no d i ff er ence gi ven th a t C o o ka lr e a d yk n e w th e in f o rm a tio n b u t a f

f irm a tiv e lyc h o s e n o t to p r e s e n t it. Se e Sc hr i r o v . L andr i

gan , 55 0 U . S . 46 5, 47 7 (20 07 ) ( “ T he D i stri ctC ou rtw as e nt i t l e d t o c onc l ude tha tr e ga r dl e s s of w ha ti nf orm a t i on c ouns e l m i ghtha ve u n c o v e r e d in h is in v e s tig a tio n , L a n d r ig a n w o u ldh a v e in te rru p te d a n d r e f u s e d to al l ow hi s c ou nsel t o p re se ntany s uch evi dence. ”) . S ec on d, the sa m e tri al j ud ge w ho se nt ence d C oo k t o d ea th i n 1 98 8 h as st at ed th a t C o o k ’s a d d itio n a l in f o rm a tio n w o u ldn o t h a v e m a d e a n yd if f e r e n c e . Se e id. at 476 ( “ A nd i ti s w orth not i ng, a ga i n, tha tthe j udge pr e s i di ng on pos t c onvi c t i on r e vi e w w a s i de a l l ys i tua t e d t o m a ke thi s a s s e s s m e ntbe c aus e s he i s the s a m e j udge w ho s e nt e nc e d L a ndr i ga n a nd di s c us s e d the s e i s s ue s w i th hi m . ” ) . I n rul i ng on C ook’ s thi r d P C R pe t i t i on, the j udge c ons i de r e d m uc h of C ook’ s “ ne w ” m i t i ga t i on in fo rm atio n , p ar ti cu larly h is P T S D d iag n o sis. T h e ju d g e e x p lain ed th at C o o k ’s “s ub s e q u e n t d ia g n o s is o f p o s t- tr au m a tic s tr e s s d is o r d e rs im p lyg a v e an a m e to s i gni f i c a ntm e nt a l he a l th i s s ue s tha tw e r e a l r e a dyknow n t o the C ourta tthe t i m e of se nt enci ng . ” T hu s, the j ud ge, w ri t i ng as the court , det erm i ned “ un equi vo ca l l y that if it h a d k n o w n in 1 9 8 8 th a t th e D e f e n d a n t h a d b e e n d ia g n o s e d w ith p o s t- tr au m a tic30

s tr e s s d is o r d e ra t th e tim e o f th e m u r d e r s it s till w o u ldh a v e im p o s e d th e d e a th p e n a lty .” T he tr i a l j udge a l s o e xpl a i ne d tha tthe de c l a r a t i on of E r i c L a r s e n, the pr os e c ut or - turne d- c r i m i na l - de f e ns e - a tt orne yw ho s a i d he w oul d notha ve s ought th e d eath p en al ty h ad h e k n o w n ab o u tC o o k ’ s m i t i g at i n g ci rcu m st an ces, r e pr e s e nt e d “ the ul t i m a t e i n s pe c ul a t i on. ” G i ve n the pr os e c ut or ’ s ba c kgr ound a nd pr a c t i c e s i n 1987 a nd 1988, a s w e l l a s the “ f a i r l yr e gul a rba s i s ” on w hi c h the prosec ut or’ s off

i ce soug htthe death p enal ty duri ng thatperi od , i tw as

“ u n fath o m ab l e” th atth e d eath p en al ty w o u l d n o th av e b een so u g h ti n a case

“ i nvol vi ng the t ortur e , m ut i l a t i on, a nd e ve ntua l ki l l i ng of 2 c om pl e t e l yi nnoc e nt vi ct i m s. ” T hatw as true “ even for a def endantw ho w as kn ow n t o h ave been di a gnos e d” w i th P T S D . W e thi nk the s e obs e rva t i ons , m a de bythe s a m e j udge w ho se nt ence d C oo k n earl y 25 years ago, ar e per suas i ve. In sum , C oo k fai l s t o setforth a subst ant i al cl ai m thathi s pre tri al coun se l p e r f o rm e d d e f

ic ie n tlyo rth a t, e v e n if

h e d id , C o o ks u f

f e r e d p r e ju d ic e . T h is concl usi on supp ort s the di stri ctcourt ’ s deni al of R ul e 60(b)(6) re l i ef . C . C o o kha s no t e s t a bl i s he d t ha t he i s e nt i t l e d t o a s t a y o f e x e c ut i o n.

“ [L ] i ke other s t ayappl i cant s, i nm at es se eki ng t i m e t o chal l enge the m anner i n w hi ch the S t at e pl ans t o execut e them m ustsa t i sf y a l l of the re qu i re m ent s f or a31

st ay , i ncl ud i ng a s ho w i ng of a s i gn i fi cantpo ss i bi l i ty of s ucce ss on the m er i t s. ” Hill v . McD o n a ld , 547 U . S . 573, 584 ( 2006) . A s di s c us s e d su p ra , w e r ej ec t C o o k ’ s M

art i nezc la im o n th e g r o u n d s th a t M art i nezdo es no tappl y, and that , even i f i tdo es , C oo k’ s pre tri al IA C cl ai m i s notsubst ant i al . B ec ause C oo k there fore f a ils to s h o w “as ig n if

ic a n t p o s s ib ilityo f

s u c c e s s o n th e m e r its ,” w e m u s t d e n yh is req u estfo r a st ay. W e a l s o c onc l ude tha tC ook f a i l s t o m e e ttw o of

the thr e e r e m a i ni ng re qu i re m ent s f

or a s t ay : “ thatthe bal ance of equi t i es t i ps i n h i s f avor[] and thatan in ju n c tio n is in th e p u b lic in te r e s t.” W i nt erv. N aturalR es . D ef

. C ou nci l , Inc. , 555 U . S . 7, 20 ( 2008) . A s di s c us s e d su p ra , C ook ha s de l a y e d f or25 y e a r s di s c l os i ng m u c h o f th e in f o rm a tio n o n w h ic h h e n o w p r e m is e s h is p r e tr ia l I A C c la im . C f. Hill , 5 4 7 U .S . a t 5 8 4 ( e x p la in in g th a t w h e r e ap r is o n e rh a s d e la y e d b r in g in g h is c la im , th e e q u itie s c u t s h a rp lya g a in s t h im ) ; G o m ez v. U . S. D ist. C o u rt , 5 0 3 U . S. 653, 654 ( 1992) ( pe rc ur i a m ) ( not i ng tha tthe “ l a s t - m i nut e na tur e of a n appl i c a t i on” ora n appl i c a nt ’ s “ a tt e m pta tm a ni pul a t i on” of the j udi c i a l pr oc e s s m a ybe gr ounds f o rd e n ia l o f

as tay ) . I n a d d itio n , th e c itiz e n s o f th e S ta te o f

A r iz o n a— e s p e c ia lly th e fam i l i es o f C arl o s C ru z-R am o s an d K ev i n S w an ey— h av e a co m p el l i n g i n t erest i n s e e i ng tha tA r i z ona ’ s l a w f ul j udgm e nt s a ga i ns tC ook a r e e nf or c e d.32 CONCL US I ON T he di stri ctcourtprop er l y deni ed C oo k’ s Rul e 60(b)(6) m ot i on for r el i ef f r o m ju d g m e n t. M

a rt i n ez d o e s n o t ap p lyto C o o kg iv e n C o o k ’s d e c is io n to re pres enthi m se l f. E ven i f M art i nezd o e s ap p ly , C o o kh a s n o t e s tab lis h e d th a t h is p r e tr ia l c o u n s e l I A C c la im is s u b s ta n tia l. C o o ka ls o f a ils to m e e t th e r e q u ir e m e n ts fo r a st ay o f ex ecu t i o n . T h e d i stri ctco u rt ’ s j u d g m en ti s A FFI R M ED , an d C o o k ’s m o t i o n fo r a st ay o f ex ecu t i o n i s D EN I ED .33 C O U N SEL M i chae l J. M ee han (argued), L aw O ff i ce of M i chae l M ee han, T ucson, A ri zona, and D al e A . B ai ch and R ob i n C . K on ra d, F eder al P ub l i c D ef ender, C api t al H abea s U ni t , P hoe ni x, A r i z ona( on the br i e f s ) , f orP e t i t i one r - A ppe l l a ntD a ni e l W a y ne C ook. K e ntE . C a tt a ni ( a r gue d) a nd T hom a s C . H orne ( on the br i e f s ) , O f f i c e of the A tt orne yG e ne r a l , P hoe ni x, A r i z ona , f orR e s ponde nt - A ppe l l e e C ha r l e s L . R y a n.