FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT
EDWARD HAR OLD SC HAD, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt,
a nd R OB ER T GLEN JONES, JR ., Interve nor-Pla intiff,
v. JANIC E K. B REW ER , Gove rnor of the State of Ariz ona , in he r offic ia l c a pa c ity ; SC OTT SM ITH, C hie f of Sta ff to Gove rnor B re w e r, in his offic ia l c a pa c ity ; B RIAN LIVINGSTON, C ha irm an an d Exe c utiveDire c t or, Ariz ona B oa rd of Exe c utiveC le m e n c y ; JAC K LASOTA, M e m be r, Ariz ona

B oa rd of Exe c utive C le m e nc y , in his offic ia l c a pa c ity , AKA John Ja c k La sota ; ELLEN KIR SC HB AUM , M e m

be r, Ariz ona

B o ard of Exe c utiveC le m e n c y , in he r offic ia l c a pa c i ty ; DONNA HAR

RIS, M e m

be r, Ariz ona B oa rd of Exe c utive C le m e nc y , in he r offic ia l c a

pa c ity , De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 13-16978 D.C . No. 2:13-c v-01962-ROS
OPINION 

# F IL ED
OCT 07 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALSAppe a l from the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na R osly n O. Silve r, Se nior Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm i tte d Oc tobe r 7, 2013 * San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : SC HR OEDER , RE INHARDT, a n d GR AB ER , C i rc uit Judge s. Pe r C uriam : Pla intiff-Appe lla

nt Edwa rd Sc ha d is sc he dule d

to bee xe c ute d on Oc t obe r 9, 2013, in Ariz o na

for the 1978 m

urde r of Lorim e r Grove . His e fforts to re ope n the distric t c o urt’ s 2006 ha

be a s judgm e nt by

invoking Fe de ra l R

ule of C i vil Proc e dure 60(b) ha ve be e n the subje c t

of a nothe r a ppe a l, No. 13-16895, in a se pa rate distric t
c ourt a c tion. In our opinion, we a ffirm e d the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of re lie f and
re c o unte d the long history of this litiga

tion. Sc had v

. Ry an , No. 13-16895, 2013 W L 5498094, a

t *1-2 (9th C ir. Oc t. 4, 2013). Sc ha d file d this a c tion in district c o urt prior to his c le m e nc y he aring, whic h took pla c e on Oc tobe r 2, 2013. Heunsuc c e ssfully sought to enjoin the he aring a nd to sta y his e xe c ution, c la im i ng tha t theC le m e nc y

B oa rd wa s bia se d a

nd subje c t to undue pre ssure by

the Gove rnor in viola

tion of dueproc e ss. TheC le m e n c y B oa rd in Ariz ona

is a p pointe d by

the Gove rnor a

nd issue s re c o m

m e ndations to the

* The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2). 2Gove rnor. TheGove rnor m ay grant c le m e nc y

only whe n the B oa

rd re c om m e nds it. Ariz . R e v. Stat . § 31-402(A). The Supre m e C ourt ha s ne ve r re c ogniz e d a c a s e in whic h c le m e nc y proc e e dings c onduc te d pursua nt to a sta te ’ s e xe c utivepowe rs ha

ve im plic ate d due proc e s s. One opinion ha s sugge ste d tha t due proc e ss c onc e rns m ight beim plic ate d in a situa tion in which the c l e m e nc y proc e e ding’ s outc om e is wholly arbitra ry , a s would bethe c a se if c le m e nc y we re de te rm ine d by

a c oin toss. Ohio Adult Parole Auth. v . W

oodw ard, 523 U.S. 272, 289 (1998) (O’ C onnor, J., c onc urring). B ribe ry or othe r c orrupt pra c tic e s ha ve a lso be e n sugge ste d

a s grounds to bring sta

te
e xe c utivec le m e nc y

proc e e dings under fe de ra l sc rutiny
. Id . at 290-91 (Ste v e ns, J., disse nting). Sc ha d re c ogniz e s the high thre shold hefa c e s to pre va il, a s did the distric t c o urt in de ny ing the re que st for injunc tive re l ie f. The distric t c ourt he ld a

n e v ide ntia

ry proc e e ding in which

it he ard te stim ony from c urre nt a nd form e r m e m

be rs of the B oa

rd. The distric t c ourt found tha t the
c urre nt m e m

be rs of the boa

rd te stifie d c re dibly

tha t no pre ssure from

the Gove rnor
wa s e ve r e xe rte d upon them to votea ga inst c le m e n c y . Form e r m e m b e rs of the B oa rd a lso te stifie d tha

t the y we re not instruc te d to votea pa rtic ula r wa y , a nd the distric t c o urt a lso found the ir te stim ony c re dible
. Form e r m e m

be rs of the B oa

rd who re c om

m e n d e d c le m e nc y in a

pa rtic ula r c a s e , howe ve r, we re not re a ppointe d, 3and thedistric t c ourt took tha t fa c t into a c c ount in re a c hing its de c i sion. Thec ourt he ld tha t the e vide nc e wa s not suffic ie nt to ra ise due proc e ss c o nc e rns unde r the
a pplic a ble sta nda rds. Sc ha d the n

file d a Fe de ra l R

ule of C ivil Proc e dure 59 m o tion c onte nding that one of the witne sse s m ay have te stifie d fa l se ly

in de sc ribing thec o nte nts of a le tte r the witne ss thought may have c om e from

within the

Gove rnor’ s offic e . Whe n tha t le tte r wa s produc e d, it showe d tha t it wa s writte n by

the B oa rd itse lf a nd did not support a

n infe re nc e tha

t pre ssure from

the Gove rnor’ s offic e wa s brought
on a ny B oa rd m e m be r. The distric t c ourt de nie d the m o tion. In this a ppe a l, Sc ha d c o nte n ds thedistric t c ourt’ s c re dibility findings were
c le arly e rrone ous. There c ord fully supports the

distric t c ourt’ s findings a nd the re is no ba sis to disturb its c re dibility de te rm i nations. Sc ha d a lso c onte nds thesta nda rds for issuing a

n injunc t ion we re m e t . Se e W inte r v . N atural Re s. De f . C ounc il, Inc

. , 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). He c onte nds tha

t the re re m a i n se rious que s tions a s to thefa irne s s of theB oa rd’ s proc e e dings. The
re c o rd and thedistric t c ourt’ s we ll-re a sone d de c ision do not support this
c onte ntion. Thedistric t c ourt did not a b use its disc re tion in deny ing a n injunc tion. The distric t c ourt’ s orde r de ny ing thepre lim i na ry injunc tion is AFFIR

M ED. The re que st for sta

y of e x e c ution pending a

ne w c le m e nc y

he aring is DENIED. 4CO UNSE L

Ke lle y J. He nry , Assista

nt Fe de ra l Public De fe nde r, Na shville , Te nne sse e ; a nd De nise Ire ne Young, La

w Offic e of De nise I. Young, Tuc s on, Ariz ona , for Pe titioner-Appe lla

nt Edwa rd Ha rold Sc ha d. Tim othy M . Ga brie lse n, Assista

nt Fe de ra l Public De fe nde r, Tuc son, Ariz ona , for Inte rve nor-Pla intiff, Robe rt Gle n Jone s, Jr. Ke lle y Ela i ne Gillila

n-Gibson a

nd B rian Patric k Luse , Assista nt Attorney s Ge ne ra l, Phoe nix, Ariz ona , for De fe nda nt-Appe lle e s.

5