N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
M AR C EL D. THOM PSON,

Applic a nt,
v. ISIDR O B AC A, W arde n; ATTOR NEY GENER AL FOR THE STATE OF NEVADA, R e sponde nts. No. 18-71374

M EM O R ANDUM *

Applic ation for Le ave to File a Se c ond or Suc c e ssive Ha

be a s C o rpus Pe tition A rgue d a nd Subm itte d Ja

nua ry 14, 2021 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : SC HR OEDER , B YB EE, a nd R . NELSON, C irc uit Judge s. Ne va da sta te prisone r M arc e l Thom

pson wa s c onvic te d in 1994 of four
c ounts of se xua l a ssa

ult a ga inst a

c hild unde r the a ge of fourte e n a nd se nt e nc e d to four c onse c utive life se nte nc e s. He now a pplie s for le ave to file a

se c ond or
suc c e ssive (SOS) ha

be a s pe tition pursua

nt to 28 U.S.C
. § 2254. Thom p son c la im s 

# FIL ED JAN 27 2021 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, 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 Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.that

he re c e ive d the c onse c utive se nte nc e s on theba sis of a pre -se nte n c e inve stiga tion (PSI) re port tha

t inc lude d the fe lony

re c ord of a

n individual othe r tha n Thom pson; hec onte nds tha

t he is the re fore innoc e nt of thefe lony c o nvic tions that he c la im s form e d the ba sis for the tria l c ourt’ s im position of c onse c utive , rathe r tha n c o nc urre nt, se nte nc e s. Unde r Ne va da

la w, the tria l c ourt ha d unfe tte re d disc re tion with re spe c t to whe the r to im

pose c onc urre nt or c onse c utive se nte nc e s . Ne v. R e v. Stat. Ann. § 176.035. W e de ny the a

pplic at ion be c a

u se , e v e n a ssum ing Thom p son c an
e sta blish tha t the a c tua l ba sis for thetria l c ourt’ s de c i sion in his c a se wa s fla we d,
and tha t no re a sona

b le fa c tfinde r would ha

ve im pose d a sim i la r se nte nc e ha d the PSI re port be e n

a c c urate , Thom

pson ha s not a c te d with duedilige n c e a s re quire d unde r the fe de ra l la

w . At the tim e of se nte nc ing in 1994, Thom pson que stione d the a c c ura c y of the PSI re port on the g round tha t it inc lude d fe l ony

c onvic tions a

nd tha t he ha d none . The judge orde re d a finge rprint a

na ly sis tha

t a ppe ars to ha

v e linke d Thom pson to mi sde m e a

n ors liste d on thePSI re port. Thom pson file d sta

te ha be a s pe titions in 1996, 1999, a n d 2004, a sse rting va

rious c la i m s. He file d a

fe de ra l ha be a s pe tition in 2006 tha

t c l a im e d, inte r a lia , tha

t the se nte nc ing c ourt re lie d on

2“ suspe c t e vide n c e of prior c o nvic tions.”The distric t c ourt de nie d the pe tition for

la c k of a ny fa c t u a l support “

be y ond pe titione r’ s m e re a lle gation . . . .” Thom pson did not obta

in a n FB I Ide ntity

History Sum

m ary until 2016. The FB I R e p ort inc lude s inform at ion re lating both to Thom p s on a nd to a se c ond individual, listing prior fe lony c onvic tions tha

t c ould be long to the

othe r individual
and not to Thom

pson. W e ne e d not de te rm ine whe the r the re c o rd is suffic ie nt to e sta blish tha t, if the FB I R e port ha d

be e n a c c urate , Thom

pson would not ha

ve re c e ive d the
c onse c utive se nte nc e s . W e a lso ne e d not de c ide whe the r suc h a showing would
am ount to the

a c tua l innoc e n c e ne c e ssa ry to support le ave to file an SOS pe tition pursua nt to 28 U.S.C
. § 2244(b)(2)(B )(ii). Although Thom pson kne w the a c c ura c y of the re c ord wa s que stiona ble at the tim e of se nt e nc i ng in 1994, it wa s not until 2016 tha t he obta ine d the doc um e ntation from the FB I upon whic h he now re lie s. Se c tion 2244(b)(2)(B )(i) re q uire s tha t “ the fa c t ua l pre dic ate for the c l a im c ould not have be e n disc ove re d pre viously

through thee xe rc ise of due dilige nc e .” Thom pson ha s not sa

tisfie d tha t re quire m e nt. DE NIE D.

3