Opinion ID: 2742424
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: “Pending or Impending in Any Court”

Text: In United States v. Microsoft, this circuit noted that Canon 3A’s prohibition against commenting about pending or impending matters applies -- as its text makes clear -- to cases in “any court, state or federal, trial or appellate.” 253 F.3d 34, 112 (D.C. Cir. 2001). Neither the Code nor the Rules defines “pending” or “impending” matters. The ABA Model Code, which is not binding on federal judges, defines a “pending matter” as “a matter that has commenced.” A.B.A., MODEL CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT, Terminology. “As the term ‘impending’ indicates, the prohibition begins even before a case enters the court system, when there is reason to believe a case may be filed.” Microsoft, 253 F.3d at 112. Cf. A.B.A., MODEL CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT, Terminology (defining an “impending matter” as one “that is imminent or expected to occur in the near future”). The commentary to Canon 3A(6) further provides that “[t]he admonition against public comment about the merits of a pending or impending matter continues until the appellate process is complete.” Canon 3A(6), cmt.; see Microsoft, 253 F.3d at 112 (quoting Canon 3A(6), cmt.). With this background, we proceed to examine whether any matters involving the individuals upon whose cases Judge Jones commented were pending or impending in any court. 1. Druery. At the time of Judge Jones’ February 2013 lecture, Druery was on death row in Texas. On July 20, 2011, Judge Jones had written an opinion denying Druery’s request for a certificate of appealability (COA) from a district court decision denying his habeas petition. Druery v. Thaler, 647 F.3d 535, 537 (5th Cir. 2011). The Supreme Court denied certiorari on February 21, 2012, Druery v. Thaler, 132 S. Ct. 1550 (2012), a year before Judge Jones’ lecture. Thereafter, Druery continued to file letters and further habeas petitions with 53 the federal district court. See Special Counsel Report 41. On January 17, 2013, the district court denied Druery’s request for a stay of execution, reversal of his conviction, or a new trial date. Order at 2, Druery v. Thaler, No. 09-835 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 17, 2013). It did not, however, address his July 2012 plea for relief relating to his alleged hypothyroidism and an unspecified claim of evidentiary error at his trial. See Letter from Marcus Druery to Judge Gray Miller, Druery v. Thaler, No. 09-835 (S.D. Tex. July 23, 2012). Although there was no matter pending in the Fifth Circuit in February 2013, the district court’s denial of Druery’s request for a stay made an appeal to the Circuit impending, in the sense that there was “reason to believe a case may be filed,” Microsoft, 253 F.3d at 112. Similarly, matters were pending or impending in the district court because the appellate process was not yet complete, see Canon 3A(6), cmt., because Druery’s letter of July 2012 had not yet been addressed, and in light of Druery’s practice of filing numerous letters and motions. See Docket Entries 27, 28, 29, 30, 43, 44 & 45, Druery v. Thaler, No. 09835 (S.D. Tex.). Indeed, Druery continued to file letters in the district court well after the date of Judge Jones’ lecture, see Docket Entries 48, 49, 50, 53 & 54, Druery v. Thaler, No. 09835 (S.D. Tex.), and, on November 12, 2013, the court entered an order appointing counsel for Druery “throughout the remainder of his federal habeas process,” Order Nunc Pro Tunc Appointing Counsel, Druery v. Stephens, No. 09-835 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 12, 2013). Matters were also pending in Texas state courts at the time of the lecture. “Shortly before his scheduled execution on August 1, 2012,” Druery had filed a motion in Texas state court challenging his competency to be executed on the ground that he suffered from a “psychotic disorder [that] prevent[ed] a rational understanding of the connection between his crime and 54 punishment.” Druery v. State, 412 S.W.3d 523, 526, 530-31 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). The motion led to a number of hearings and to a stay of execution and the ordering of further proceedings to assess competency. See id. 2. Swearingen. Swearingen was also on death row in Texas at the time of Judge Jones’ lecture. No matters involving Swearingen were pending or impending in the Fifth Circuit at the time. On April 7, 2011, a panel that included Judge Jones had affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Swearingen’s successive habeas corpus petition, which was based on a claim of newly discovered evidence and ineffective assistance of counsel. Swearingen v. Thaler, 421 F. App’x 413, 414 (5th Cir. 2011).24 On May 9, 2011, the same panel rejected Swearingen’s attempt to file another habeas petition based on a stand-alone claim of actual innocence. Order, In re Swearingen, No. 1120276 (May 9, 2011). On February 27, 2012, the Supreme Court denied Swearingen’s petition for a writ of certiorari seeking review of the Fifth Circuit’s April 7, 2011 decision. Swearingen v. Thaler, 132 S. Ct. 1632 (2012). There was, however, a matter impending in the U.S. Supreme Court and pending or impending in the Texas state courts at the time of the University of Pennsylvania lecture. The Texas courts had denied the last of Swearingen’s several state habeas petitions in December 2012. Ex Parte Swearingen, No. 53613-10, 2012 WL 6200431, at  (Tex. Crim. App. Dec. 12, 2012). In March 2013, Swearingen sought a writ of certiorari, which the Supreme Court denied in June 2013. See Swearingen v. Texas, 133 S. Ct. 2826 (2013). 24 Earlier panels, also including Judge Jones, had considered previous habeas challenges by Swearingen. See In re Swearingen, 556 F.3d 344 (5th Cir. 2009); Swearingen v. Quarterman, 192 F. App’x 300 (5th Cir. 2006), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1216 (2007). 55 3. Chester. A matter involving a third individual, Elroy Chester, was impending -- although not pending -- in the Fifth Circuit at the time of the February 20, 2013 lecture. In December 2011, Judge Jones authored an opinion for the Circuit affirming the district court’s denial of Chester’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus, Chester v. Thaler, 666 F.3d 340, 350 (5th Cir. 2011), and the Supreme Court denied certiorari on October 29, 2012, Chester v. Thaler, 133 S. Ct. 525 (2012). On the day of the lecture, Chester was scheduled for execution on April 24, 2013. The execution was subsequently delayed until June 12, 2013. On June 4, Chester filed a motion to stay his execution, recall the mandate, and recuse Judge Jones from the case, based on the allegations that are in the Complaint now before us. Judge Jones denied the motion to recuse. Chester v. Thaler, No. 08-70023 (June 11, 2013). On the same day, over her dissent but without expressing a view on the merits of the Complaint, the Fifth Circuit panel assigned to the case issued an order directing the Clerk’s Office to assign the matter to another panel. Chester v. Thaler, 522 F. App’x 208, 208 & n.2 (5th Cir. 2013). The new panel denied Chester’s stay and recall motions the next day. Chester v. Thaler, No. 08-70023 (June 12, 2013). Thereafter, the Supreme Court denied certiorari, Chester v. Thaler, 133 S. Ct. 2823 (2013), and Chester was executed. Because defendants routinely file last-minute, successive habeas petitions and requests for stays prior to scheduled executions,25 there was “reason to believe,” Microsoft, 253 F.3d 25 See, e.g., Sawyer v. Whitley, 505 U.S. 333, 341 (1992) (“In the every day context of capital penalty proceedings, a federal district judge typically will be presented with a successive or abusive habeas petition a few days before, or even on the day of, a scheduled execution . . .”); Baze v. Rees, 553 U.S. 35, 81 n.17 (2008) (Stevens, J., concurring in the judgment) (“‘[T]here is a strong possibility that 56 at 112, at the time of the lecture that a stay motion like Chester’s would be filed. This rendered that matter “impending” within the meaning of Canon 3A(6). Id. And it is for this reason that the Committee on Codes of Conduct of the Judicial Conference advises judges as follows: “When writing about a case the judge has heard, even after final disposition, the judge should . . . consider whether the comments might afford a basis for collateral attack on the judgment. A judge must avoid writings that are likely to lead to disqualification.” Comm. on Codes of Conduct, Advisory Op. 55 (2009). 4. Ibarra and Trevino. Finally, Judge Jones acknowledges that a petition for rehearing en banc in the case of Ramiro Ibarra was “technically pending in the Fifth Circuit” at the time of her lecture. Jones Hr’g Tr. 7; see Jones Recollections 22. She had forgotten this, she said, “because the panel ruled in June or July of 2012, and Ibarra filed a petition for rehearing en banc based on the just-issued Supreme Court decision of Martinez [v. Ryan, 132 S. Ct. 1309 (2012),] which dealt with cause for procedural defaults and habeas.” Jones Hr’g Tr. 7. After being convicted and sentenced in the Texas state courts, Ibarra had filed a habeas petition in federal district court. The petition was denied and, in June 2012, Judge Jones authored an opinion denying Ibarra’s motion to vacate the district court’s judgment in light of Martinez, which had been decided in March 2012. See Ibarra v. Thaler, 687 F.3d 222, 227 (5th Cir. 2012). The principal point addressed in the June 2012 Ibarra opinion was the district court’s determination that Ibarra had procedurally defaulted his ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel the conviction or sentence will be reconsidered . . . [in] last-minute stays of execution for decades after the crime.’” (quoting Alex Kozinski & Sean Gallagher, Death: The Ultimate Run-On Sentence, 46 CASE W. RES. L. REV. 1, 17-18 (1995))). 57 claim by failing to raise it in a timely matter in the Texas courts. In Martinez, the Supreme Court held that, in states in which defendants must bring claims of ineffective assistance in the first instance on collateral rather than direct review (as the Court found was true in Arizona, the state in which Martinez was convicted), a showing that a defendant received ineffective assistance (or no counsel) in his initial state habeas proceeding may excuse his procedural default of an ineffective-assistanceof-trial-counsel claim. 132 S. Ct. at 1320. Finding that, unlike Arizona’s procedures, “Texas’ procedures do not mandate that ineffectiveness claims be heard in the first instance in habeas proceedings,” Judge Jones concluded that “Ibarra is not entitled to the benefit of Martinez for his ineffectiveness claims.” Ibarra, 687 F.3d at 227. In August 2012, Judge Jones also authored an opinion denying Ibarra’s application for a certificate of appealability from the district court’s denial of habeas relief. Ibarra v. Thaler, 691 F.3d 677, 686 (5th Cir. 2012). In so doing, she concluded that none of Ibarra’s claims satisfied the standard for granting a COA. Those claims were that: (1) he was “mentally retarded” and therefore, under Atkins, could not be subjected to the death penalty; (2) local law enforcement had failed to inform him of his right to consult the Mexican consul under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations; and (3) his trial counsel was ineffective in his investigation, development and presentation of mitigation evidence, and the court should apply Martinez to his case. On September 14, 2012, Ibarra petitioned for rehearing en banc of both the June and August decisions. The petition was based solely on the panel’s analysis of Martinez, and contended that Martinez applied to cases in Texas. See Petition for Rehearing En Banc, Ibarra v. Thaler, 691 F.3d 677 (5th Cir. 2012) (No. 11-70031). At the time of the lecture, the Fifth 58 Circuit had “taken no action on this en banc petition because of the intervening cert. grant in Trevino v. Thaler, [449 F. App’x 415 (5th Cir. 2011),] which posed [the same] issue to the Supreme Court.” Jones Recollections 22. The Fifth Circuit did not ultimately rule on Ibarra’s petition until July 17, 2013. Ibarra v. Stephens, 723 F.3d 599, 600 (5th Cir. 2013). As noted, Judge Jones also acknowledges that Trevino -- a Fifth Circuit case not specifically cited in the Complaint, but upon which she also commented -- was pending before the Supreme Court at the time of her lecture. Jones Recollections 15-16, 22. The Court had granted Trevino’s petition for certiorari on the question of whether Martinez extended to cases in Texas. 133 S. Ct. 534, 535 (2012). Trevino wanted the Court to extend Martinez to states that did not require defendants to bring claims of ineffective assistance in the first instance on collateral review, but nonetheless made it practically impossible for those claims to be raised on direct review. See Petition for Writ of Certiorari, Trevino v. Thaler, 133 S. Ct. 1911 (2013) (No. 11-10189), 2012 WL 5353864 (filed April 30, 2012). The Court had not yet ruled at the time of Judge Jones’ lecture; oral argument in Trevino took place on February 25, 2013, just five days later. This rendered Trevino not only pending in the Supreme Court, but also “pending or impending” in the Fifth Circuit. See Canon 3A(6), cmt. (providing that the “admonition against public comment about the merits of a pending or impending matter continues until the appellate process is complete”); Microsoft, 253 F.3d at 112. Indeed, on May 28, 2013, the Supreme Court vacated Trevino and remanded the case to the Fifth Circuit, holding along the lines advanced in Ibarra’s petition for reconsideration en banc. Trevino v. Thaler, 133 S. Ct. 1911, 1921 (2013) (“[W]here, as [in Texas, a] state procedural framework, by reason of its design and operation, makes it highly unlikely in a typical case that a defendant will have a meaningful opportunity to raise a claim of ineffective 59 assistance of trial counsel on direct appeal, our holding in Martinez applies.”). On June 5, 2013, Ibarra moved to recuse Judge Jones from hearing his pending petition for rehearing en banc, based on the allegations in the instant Complaint, which had been filed that day. The recusal motion was denied on June 10, 2013, in an order signed by Judge Jones. Order, Ibarra v. Thaler, No. 11- 70031 (June 10, 2013). The three-judge panel, which included Judge Jones, then vacated its prior decision and that of the district court to the extent it was inconsistent with Trevino, and it remanded Ibarra to the district court for further proceedings. Ibarra v. Stephens, 723 F.3d 599, 600 (5th Cir. 2013). In January 2014, the Fifth Circuit likewise remanded Trevino to the district court for reconsideration of his ineffective assistance claim. Trevino v. Stephens, 740 F.3d 378, 378 (5th Cir. 2014). 5. Summary. In sum, we find that there were a number of matters involving the individuals whom Judge Jones discussed that were pending or impending in courts at the time of her lecture. Matters involving Druery were impending in the Fifth Circuit, pending or impending in federal district court, and pending in the Texas state courts. Although no matters involving Swearingen were pending or impending in the Fifth Circuit, there was an impending matter in the U.S. Supreme Court and pending or impending matters in the Texas courts. With respect to Chester, there was a matter impending in the Fifth Circuit. Finally, as Judge Jones acknowledges, at the time of the lecture a matter involving Ibarra was pending in the Fifth Circuit and a matter involving Trevino was pending in the Supreme Court -- and therefore pending or impending in the Fifth Circuit as well. Accordingly, we must proceed to consider whether the judge’s comments went to the merits of any of the pending or impending matters. 60