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 B ENJAM IN, Pe titione r - Appe lla nt,
v. C ONNIE GIPSON, W arde n, R

e sponde n t - Appe lle e . No. 12-56664

D.C . No. 2:11-c v-02899-JVS-SH
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 Jam e s V. Se lna , Distric t

Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 2, 2016 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : REINHAR

DT, PAEZ, a

nd M . SM ITH, C irc u it Judge s. This is a n e xtre m e ly

troubling c a se . R ic k

y B e n jam in a ppe a ls the distric t
c ourt’ s de nia l of his pro seha be a s pe tition, whic h c ha lle nge s his 2006 c onvic tions for first-de gre e m

urde r and atte m

pte d se c ond-de gre e robbe ry . W e re v ie w unde r



# FIL ED FEB 18 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.the A nti-Te rrorism and Effe c tive De at

h Pe na lty Ac t of 1996 (“ AEDPA” ), and we
a ffirm
. 1. B e nja m in first a

rgue s tha t insuffic ie nt e vide nc e e x iste d for the jury to
c onc lude tha

t he c om m itte d the offe nse s. The sta te offe re d the following e vide nc e re le va nt to his ide

ntity a s a pe rpe trator. First, thevic tim ’ s siste r Ange lic a , who
wa s 11 y e ars old a

t the tim e of the offe nse s , te stifie d tha t she sa w a m an with a

gun jum p on the hood of he r brothe r’ s c a r, tha t she turne d to gra

b a phone , a nd the n he ard, but did not se e , a shot fire d. B e c a use the m a

n wa s we aring a

hood a nd ba se ba ll c a

p , she sa id tha

t she sa w only the bottom

ha lf of his fa c e . Ange lic a first ide n tifie d a

nothe r m an a s the pe rpe trator a fte r vie w ing a photo line

up. She initia lly
re ite ra te d tha

t ide ntific ation a

t the pre l im ina

ry he aring, but, a fte r a

lunc h bre ak,
re c a nte d he r te stim ony and ide ntifie d B e nja m i n. At thetria l, she e xpla ine d tha t she ha d switc he d he r ide ntific ation to B e nja m in during lunc htim e be c a use his c hin wa s

“ a bit m ore full tha

n the othe r guy ’ s” (she ha d sta te d at the pre lim ina

ry he aring tha

t she sa w only the shoote r’ s c hin). A ne ighbor te stifie d tha t she he ard a

single shot
and sa wonly a m an’ s ba c k , but not his fac e , a s he ran from the sc e ne . R e ly ing sole ly on the m an’ s “ he ight” and “build,” the ne ighbor pic ke d B e nja m in out of a photo lineup a

nd re ite ra t e d tha

t ide ntific ation a

t tria l. The vic tim ’ s brothe r M ose s a lso te s tifie d, sa

y ing tha t B e nja m in told him

tha t som e one e l se in the ne ighborhood 2ha d c om

m itte d the c rim e and tha

t M o se s c ould borrow B e nja m in’ s guns to ge t
re ve nge . M ose s furthe r te stifie d tha t B e nja m in de sc ribe d one of his guns a s a .380
c a libe r, whic h is thesa

m e c a l ibe r a s the m

urde r we a pon. The sta

te a lso introduc e d the t e stim ony

of De nise White , a

se lf-de sc ribe d “ c ra c khe a d” who sa id tha t she
ove rhe ard B e nja

m in sa y tha t he shot “ that e

se ,” whic h White de fine d a s re fe rring to a “ white boy ” or “ H ispa nic pe rson.” Whe n a ske d how she c ould be sure whic h shooting B e nja

m in wa s ta lking a

bout, W hite sta t e d tha t she wa s sure be c a

use she ha d witne sse d him

fle e ing a fte r the shooting, although he r de sc ription of the inc i de nt wa s inc o n siste nt with the re st of the sta

te ’ s e vide nc e . 1 Fina lly , the sta te introduc e d fore nsic e vide nc e de m onstra ting tha t a num b e r of individuals’ DNA
wa s pre se nt on thehe a dba nd of a ba se ba ll c a

p found a t the sc e ne and tha

t B e nja m in, who live d

in the ne ighborhood, wa s one of those individual s. Our re vie w of a

suffic ie n c y

of the e vide nc e c h a lle nge unde r AEDPA is subje c t to the“ twic e -de fe re ntia l sta nda rd” of J ac k son v . Virginia , 443 U.S. 307 (1979), and AEDPA. P ark e r v . Matthe w

s , 132 S. C t. 2148, 2152 (2012). The

1 White m a inta ine d tha

t the shooting ha

ppe ne d at m idnight, while a ll othe r witne s se s te stifie d tha

t it ha ppe ne d be twe e n 6 a

nd 7PM , during da

y light hours. White a lso sa id tha

t she he ard “ two, thre e , m ay b e four” shots, while

the bulk of the e vide nc e , e spe c ia l ly

the fore nsic e v ide nc e , wa s tha t only one shot ha d be e n fire d. Fina lly , White te stifie d tha t she sa w two pe rpe trators fle e ing in a gre e n c ar, while anothe r e y e witne ss, who obse rve d a pe rpe trator ge tting into a ge ta way c ar, te stifie d une quivoc a lly

tha t the c ar wa s white
. 3e vide nc e of B e nja m in’ s ide ntity

a s a pa rtic ipa nt in thec rim e s is we ak, a s m uc h of the t e stim ony

offe re d by

the sta te wa s e ithe r of low proba tive va lue or suffe re d from c le ar c re dibility

de fe c ts (or both). Under J ac k son and AEDPA, howe ve r, we are n ot pe rm i tte d to we igh witne ss c re dibility
. Se e Bruc e v . Te rhune , 376 F.3d 950, 957 (9th C ir. 2004). W e the re fore are c om pe lle d to hold tha

t “ the sta te c ourt’ s de te rm i nation tha

t a ra tiona l jury

c ould ha ve found tha

t the re wa s suffic ie nt
e vide nc e of guilt . . . wa s [not] obje c t ive ly unre a sona b le .” Boy e r v . Be l le que , 659 F.3d 957, 965 (9th C ir. 2013). 2. B e nja m in ne xt a

rgue s tha t his c ounse l wa s ine ffe c t ive for fa iling to move to suppre ss Ange lic a ’ s e y e witne ss ide ntific ation. Se e Stric k land v . W ashington , 466 U.S. 668 (1984). B e nja m in’ s c ounse l’ s pe rform anc e wa s not de fic ie n t, howe v e r, be c a

use any suc h m otion would like ly have be e n unsuc c e ssful. Although Ange l ic a ’ s ide ntific ation wa s e xc e e dingly unre lia ble , c ourts suppre ss e y e witne ss ide n tific ations only

whe n the y are the produc t of im prope rly sugge stive c onduc t by the p olic e . Se e Pe rry

v . N e w Hampshire , 132 S. C t. 716, 721 (2012). 2 B e c a use

2 Although Pe rry wa s de c ide d a fte r B e nja m in’ s tria l, C a l ifornia

c ourts a ppe ar to ha

v e m a de the sa

m e re quire m e nt e xplic it prior to Pe rry . Se e , e .g. , Pe ople v . Pe gge se , 102 C a l. App. 3d 415, 422 (1980); Pe oplev . Boothe , 65 C a l. App. 3d 685, 691 (1977). 4the re is no e vide nc e of suc h c onduc t in this c a s e , we a ffirm the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of B e n

jam in’ s ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e of c ounse l c la im
. 3. B e nja m in’ s ne xt c la im

is a C onfronta

tion C l a use c ha l le nge to the
a dm ission of the

DNA e vide nc e . At tria l, the sta te introduc e d the inc ulpa

t ory DNA e v ide nc e through thete stim ony of a n a n a ly st who ha d not a c tua l ly c o nduc te d the D NA te sting. B e nja

m in a rgue s tha t this a rrange m e nt viola

t e d Me le nde

z-Diaz
v . Massac huse tts , 557 U.S. 305 (2009). The sta t e argue s tha

t the sta te c ourt wa s not unre a sona

ble in de t e rm ining tha

t Me le n d e z-Diaz is distinguisha

ble
. 3 In Me le nde z-Diaz , no a

na ly st te stifie d a s to theproc e d ure s unde rly i ng the fore nsic
re ports. 557 U.S. a

t 308-09. He re , by

c ontra s t, a

fore nsic ana ly st fa

m ilia r with the DNA la boratory ’ s proc e dure s te stifie d a nd wa s subje c t to c ross-e xam inat ion. Ac c ordingly , the sta

te c ourt’ s de c ision wa s not a n unre a sona

ble a pplic at ion of Me le nde z-Diaz
. Se e Flournoy

v . Small , 681 F.3d 1000, 1005 (9th C ir. 2012) (noting tha

t Me le nde z -Diaz did not a ddre ss “ the de g re e of proxim i ty the te stify ing witne s s m ust ha ve to the sc ie n t ific te st” ). 4. Fina lly , B e nja

m in a s ks tha

t we re m and his c a s e to the distric t c ourt so that he m ay se e k le ave to a

m e nd his ha

be a s pe t ition to a dd ne wly -disc ove re d

3 The Supre m e C o urt ha d y e t to de c ide Bullc o ming v . N e w Me x ic o , 131 S. C t. 2705 (2011), a

nd W illiams v . Illinois , 132 S. C t . 2221 (2012), when B e nja m in’ s c onvic tions be c am e fina l in 2009. 5c la im s. Afte r B e nja m in a p pe a l e d the distric t c ourt’ s de n ia l of his pro seha b e a s pe tition, this c ourt a

ppointe d c ounse l, who disc ove re d two unra ise d pote ntia l
c la im s: a n ine ffe c tive a ssista

nc e of c ounse l c la im

ba se d on de fe nse c ounse l’ s fa ilure to pre se nt a libi e vide nc e , a nd a Brady

4 c la im ba se d on the prose c ution’ s fa ilure to disc lose e xc ulpa tory e vide nc e , tha

t “ De n ise White ’ s” a c tua l na m e is R oc he lle Thom a s, a

nd tha t she se rve d a s a

pa id polic e inform ant in this a nd othe r c a se s. B e nja

m in is c urre n tly

pursuing the s e two ne w c la i m s in sta te c ourt. He
se e k s to a m e nd his ha

be a s pe tition to inc lude the m in c a se the sta te c ourt should not gra nt re lie f so tha

t the c la im s m ay

be brought outside

of AEDPA’ s lim ita

tions on “ s e c ond or suc c e ssive ” pe titions. 5 Se e 28 U.S.C . § 2244(b)(2). A re m and at this point, howe v e r, would be futile . B e c a use the distric t c ourt
a ddre s se d the c la im s in B e nja m in’ s pro se pe tition on the m e rits a nd issue d fina l judgm e nt, B e nja

m in c annot now a

m e nd his ha

be a s pe tition without filing a Fe de ra l

4 Brady v . Mary land, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). 5 W e grant B e nja

m in’ s m otion for judic ia l notic e , supple m e nta l m otion for judic ia l notic e , and m otion to file unde r se a l be c a

use the atta c hm e nts to the se m otions a rise out of “

proc e e dings in other c ourts . . . [tha t ] have a dire c t re lation to m atte rs at issue ” in this proc e e d ing. Trigue ros v . Adams , 658 F.3d 983, 987 (9th C ir. 2011). The m otion to se a l is gra nte d subje c t to re c onside ration should furthe r proc e e dings be initia

te d in this c ourt. 6R

ule of C ivil Proc e dure 60(b) m otion for re lie f from the judgm e nt. Se e Bonin v
. Vasque z , 999 F.2d 425, 427 (9th C ir. 1993) (“ B e c a use fina l judgm e nt a l re a dy ha d be e n e n te re d . . . whe n

B onin first sought to ra

ise six ne w issue s, the distric t c ourt prope rly c onstrue d B onin’ s m otion a s a re que st for re lie f from

the judgm e nt pursua nt to R ule 60(b).” ). The tim e in whic h B e nja m in c ould file suc h a m otion ha s e la pse d. Se e Fe d. R
. C iv. Pro. 60(c )(1). Eve n if B e n jam in c ould file a

R ule 60(b) m otion, the Supre m e C o urt ha s he ld tha t suc h m otions tha

t ra ise ne w

“ c l a im s” should ordina

rily be c onside re d unde r AEDPA’ s provisions gove rning

“ se c ond or suc c e ssive ” pe titions. Gonzale z v . C rosby , 545 U.S. 524, 530-31 (2005). The re sult in this c a se is troubling for m any re a sons, inc luding theque stion
re ga rding the suffic ie n c y

of the e vide nc e . It is e spe c ia lly troubling, howeve r, with
re spe c t to B e n

jam i n ’ s Brady c la im . Give n the m inim a l e vide nc e offe re d at tria l
and the sta

te ’ s a lle ge d

fa ilure to disc lose c ritic a l e xc ulpa tory e vide nc e , we note tha

t the re m ay we ll be a re a sona

ble proba bility tha t the re s ult of thejury

tria l would have be e n diffe re nt a

bse nt the Brady viola

tion. B e n jam in c ould not ha

ve inc lude d
any suc h c la im

in his first ha

be a s pe tition, howeve r, be c a u se the sta

te a lle ge dly fa ile d, in viola

t ion of Brady , to disc lose m ate ria l e xc ulpa tory inform at ion to the de fe nse , a nd B e nja m in did not le arn of this fa c t until a fte r the tim e within whic h to

7file a

ha b e a s c l a im

ha d e xpire d. Should the

c a se re turn to this c ourt a t a ny point,
we m ight be re q

uire d to c onside r whe the r B e nja m in’ s ne w c la im s sa

tisfy the provisions gove

rning “ se c o nd or suc c e s sive ” pe titions or, in the c a s e of the Brady
c la im , whe the r that c la i m is e x c use d from

satisfy ing thosere quire m e nts. Se e Unite d State s v . Lope z , 577 F.3d 1053, 1064-67 (9th C ir. 2009) (le aving ope n the que stion whe the r m ate ria l Brady c l a im s a re e xc use d

from sat isfy ing the provisions gove rning “ se c ond or suc c e ssive ” pe titions). The pa ne l re ta i ns jurisdic t ion ove r any furthe r c la im s tha

t m ay be pla c e d be fore this c ourt a s a re sult of the
c onvic tions we c onside r toda y . AFFIRM E D
.

8B

E N JA M IN v GIPSON 12-56664 M . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge , c onc urring in pa rt a nd disse nting in pa

rt: I c onc ur in a l l but thefina l pa ra gra ph of the m e m o randum

disposition, with whic h I disa gre e for the following re a sons: (a ) Eve ry le ga l issue be fore us ha s be e n dispose d of in thepre vious pa ra gra phs of the m e m orandum

disposition, so the

la st pa ra gra ph is wholly

unne c e ssa

ry to the disposition of this c a s e ; (b) Unde r AEDPA,
we are ge ne ra lly

re q u ire d to de fe r to the sta

te c ourts in thefirst insta

nc e , but the fina l pa ra gra ph of this m e m orandum

disposition se e m s c le a

rly de signe d to signal to a ny sta te c ourt he re a fte r c onside ring the m atte r, a s we ll a s the attorne y s involve d, the re sults fa

vore d by the pa ne l m a jority c onc e rning the Brady c la im and whe the r any

ne w c la im s sa

tisfy the provisions gove

rning “ se c o nd or suc c e ssive ” pe titions; a

nd (c ) to m ake c e rta in the sta te c ourts “ ge t the m e s sa ge ,” the pa ne l
m a jority ha s indic at e d tha

t the pa ne l will re ta in jurisdic tion ove r the c a se , e ve n though the re would norm a lly be no re a son for the pa ne l to do so. Ac c ordingly , I disse nt from the la st pa

ra gra ph of this m e m orandum disposition. 

# FIL ED FEB 18 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS