Opinion ID: 733461
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Nevius' Deutscher Argument

Text: 22 Deutscher was also a death penalty case. There the petitioner filed a second federal habeas corpus petition and sought to raise a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. Deutscher, 16 F.3d at 982-83. After two of our decisions and two remands from the Supreme Court, the issue became whether Deutscher's claims were precluded by McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467, 111 S.Ct. 1454, 113 L.Ed.2d 517 (1991), and Sawyer v. Whitley, 505 U.S. 333, 112 S.Ct. 2514, 120 L.Ed.2d 269 (1992), because the claims were presented in a second habeas petition. Deutscher, 16 F.3d at 982-83. 23 We held that Deutscher's claims were not precluded because his second petition had to be treated as his first petition. Id. at 983-84. The reason was that his first petition had never been authorized by Deutscher, as the district court found when the case was remanded for a hearing on that point. Deutscher never signed or otherwise verified the petition, and it was filed in [Deutscher's lawyer's] name and signed by him. Id. at 984. The lawyer was the same ineffective counsel who had represented Deutscher at trial and on appeal. Id. The fact that his lawyer had filed the petition raised a presumption that it was authorized and that Deutscher had been fully informed of the claims it raised, but that presumption had been rebutted to the satisfaction of the district court. Id. We summarized: 24 ... [Deutscher's lawyer] confirmed that he filed the petition without notifying Deutscher or seeking his authorization. Ahlswede mailed Deutscher a copy of the petition after filing it, but he never explained the nature of federal habeas corpus proceedings, the risk that claims not raised might be barred as abuse of the writ, or the appropriateness of having other counsel file the petition. The record satisfies us that the district court properly found that Deutscher did not understand the significance of federal habeas proceedings and did not authorize Ahlswede to file the federal habeas petition. 25 Id. 26 We conclude that Nevius' situation is wholly distinguishable from that in Deutscher. In the first place, Nevius authorized his first habeas petition. As the district court recited: 27 The record reflects that Nevius signed a verification to his original federal petition for habeas relief, stating under penalty of perjury that he has read the foregoing legal document and knows the contents thereof to be true of his own personal knowledge except for those matters therein stated upon information and belief and as to those matters, he believes them to be true. Thereafter, on February 20, 1986, this court entered its order directing Nevius to file an amended petition including any possible constitutional error entitling Petitioner to habeas corpus relief failing which the Petitioner shall be presumed deliberately to have waived his right to complain of any constitutional errors other than those set forth in the petition. Subsequently Nevius filed a supplemental petition in response to that order. That supplemental petition was signed by Nevius by declaration in which he stated, I declare, certify, and verify and state under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. 28 In addition on May 28, 1996, during a hearing before the state district court on his Second Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed June 7, 1989, Nevius testified that he authorized his counsel John Graves and Cal Potter to proceed with his first federal petition for writ of habeas corpus. The only evidence offered to contradict this clear authorization is the affidavit of Potten in which he asserts that he has no recollection whether the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel was raised with Nevius. 29 Nevius v. McDaniel, No. CV-N-96-552 HDM, Order Denying Motion to File Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, at 3-4, (D.Nev. Sept. 3, 1996) (citations omitted). 30 In the face of this record, Nevius necessarily argues that his bare authorization of the first habeas petition is not enough. He first seizes upon the statements in Deutscher that counsel had never explained the nature of federal habeas corpus proceedings, the risk that claims not raised might be barred as an abuse of the writ, or the appropriateness of having other counsel file the petition. Deutscher, 16 F.3d at 984. Nevius argues that his counsel did not explain any of those things to him, either. 31 These comments from Deutscher, however, were uttered in the context of a petition that had been filed without the knowledge or consent of the petitioner. Id. Deutscher might have been held to the consequences of the petition despite that fact, if he had ratified the action in full knowledge of the consequences. We do not read Deutscher, however, as holding that a petitioner who authorizes and signs his own petition is entitled to have the petition disregarded if he later makes a showing that he was not fully informed of its consequences by his attorney. Such a rule, we believe, would impermissibly undermine McCleskey, Sawyer, and the newly amended Section 2244(b). 32 Nevius next argues that his first habeas petition should not count, per Deutscher, because his counsel were incapable of acting as his agents by reason of the conflict that precluded them from asserting their own ineffectiveness at trial and on appeal. See Deutscher, 16 F.3d at 984. According to Nevius, his counsel, as agents, were without authority to default any of his substantive claims, particularly in light of their conflict of interest. 33 Nevius' first proposition--that an attorney is not authorized to default a client's claim--is refuted by Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 755-57, 111 S.Ct. 2546, 2567-69, 115 L.Ed.2d 640 (1991). Coleman held that an attorney's failure to appeal a state trial court's ruling, in collateral proceedings, rejecting an ineffective assistance claim defaulted that claim for purposes of federal review. Id. The attorney's error was not cause to excuse the default, because it occurred in proceedings in which the defendant had no constitutional right of counsel. Id. Nevius' counsel also defaulted in collateral proceedings in which there is no constitutional right to counsel. 34 Nevius contends that Coleman does not preclude his argument, however, because in Coleman the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel at trial at least had been addressed by the state trial court in collateral proceedings. Nevius points out that he has never had a ruling on the merits regarding the ineffectiveness of his counsel in pursuing his Swain claim. He also points out that the Supreme Court in Coleman found it unnecessary to decide whether an exception to its rule must be made when state collateral review is the first place a prisoner can present a challenge to his conviction. Coleman, 501 U.S. at 755, 111 S.Ct. at 2567. Because his trial counsel represented him in his first state and federal collateral proceedings, they could not raise the issue of their own incompetence. See United States v. Del Muro, 87 F.3d 1078, 1080-81 (9th Cir.1996) (reversible error for trial court to require trial counsel to represent defendant in bringing motion for new trial on ground of counsel's own ineffectiveness at trial). Therefore, Nevius argues, his second state and federal habeas proceedings were the first ones in which he could raise his constitutional claims of ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and on appeal. He should therefore be permitted his one chance to raise his ineffective assistance claim. 35 Nevius' argument is not without force, but it has been foreclosed by our decisions in Bonin v. Calderon, 77 F.3d 1155 (9th Cir.) (Bonin III ), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 116 S.Ct. 980, 133 L.Ed.2d 899 (1996), and Moran v. McDaniel, 80 F.3d 1261 (9th Cir.1996). In Bonin III, we held a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal to be defaulted for not being raised in Bonin's first federal habeas proceeding, even though the same counsel represented Bonin in both proceedings. Bonin III, 77 F.3d at 1159. We held that counsel's failure to raise the issue in the first federal habeas proceeding could not be excused by his ineffectiveness at that juncture, because there was no constitutional right to counsel in the habeas proceeding. Id. There was no constitutional right of counsel in such habeas proceedings even if they presented the first opportunity to raise the ineffectiveness claim. Id.; see also Moran, 80 F.3d at 1271 (holding that a petitioner may not avoid the rule that there is no right to effective assistance of counsel in state or federal habeas proceedings by asserting [that] this [second] habeas proceeding was the first proceeding in which he could have raised his claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel). 36 Nevius' argument is therefore foreclosed by Bonin III and Moran, and those cases are binding on this panel. 6 If Nevius is to pursue his claim that he is entitled to raise his ineffective assistance claim at the point when he first obtains conflict-free counsel, he must do so by seeking en banc rehearing in this court, or review by certiorari in the Supreme Court. 37 For the reasons explained above, the district court did not err in concluding that Nevius authorized his counsel to file his first habeas petition. As a result, Nevius' second habeas petition must be treated as such. The district court accordingly was correct to deny Nevius' motion to file a second petition on the ground that this court had not authorized its filing. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). III. NEVIUS' MOTION TO RECALL THE MANDATE 38 Nevius contends that we must recall our mandate in Nevius I, issued in 1988, to prevent injustice. We decline to recall the mandate. A. Our authority to recall our mandate 39 We held in Zipfel v. Halliburton Co., 861 F.2d 565 (9th Cir.), that the authority of a Court of Appeals to recall its mandate is clear. While the authority is not conferred by statute, it exists as part of the court's power to protect the integrity of its own processes. Id. at 567 (citations omitted). 40 Nevertheless, our authority to recall a mandate is limited. The decision whether to exercise the power falls within the discretion of the court, but such discretion should be employed to recall a mandate only when good cause or unusual circumstances exist sufficient to justify modification or recall of a prior judgment. Id. In general, we will recall a mandate only when we are animated by an overpowering sense of fairness and a firm belief that this is the exceptional case requiring recall of the mandate in order to prevent an injustice. Verrilli v. City of Concord, 557 F.2d 664, 665 (9th Cir.1977); see also Zipfel, 861 F.2d at 567. Thus we have recalled a mandate when a subsequent decision of the Supreme Court 'departs in some pivotal aspects' from a decision of this court. Zipfel, 861 F.2d at 567 (quoting American Iron and Steel Inst. v. EPA, 560 F.2d 589, 596 (3d Cir.1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 914, 98 S.Ct. 1467, 55 L.Ed.2d 505 (1978)). B. Nevius' motion to recall our mandate 41 Nevius' motion suffers from the fact that it is not grounded in any real infirmity in our previous decision, either when it was entered or when it is viewed in the light of later Supreme Court decisions. Nevius wants us to recall our mandate in Nevius I not to nullify an erroneous decision, but to reopen the proceeding so that he may present new claims that now cannot be addressed in a subsequent petition. The reasons that those claims cannot be addressed in a second petition are that severe limits have been placed on second petitions by the Supreme Court in McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467, 111 S.Ct. 1454, 113 L.Ed.2d 517 (1991), and by Congress in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, 28 U.S.C. § 2244(a), (b). To grant Nevius' motion simply to avoid the effect of those two procedural bars would thoroughly undermine McCleskey and the Act. That we may not do. 42 Nevius argues, however, that recall is justified under our conventional practice because McCleskey departs in some pivotal aspects from Nevius I. See Zipfel, 861 F.2d at 567 (internal quotation omitted). As Nevius recognizes, McCleskey effectively prevents him from raising two of his strongest claims: the Swain claim based on the prosecutor's post-trial remarks, 7 and his ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Nevius contends that our decision in Nevius I conflicted with McCleskey because in Nevius I we suggested that we could consider Nevius' contentions regarding the prosecutor's statements in a second habeas proceeding after the statements had been presented to the state courts. 43 There is no direct conflict between Nevius I and McCleskey, however. Our statement in Nevius I regarding further proceedings was more guarded than Nevius now recognizes. We said: 44 If there is evidence that should be presented to the state courts, then the attempt must first be made to present it there and to make a record. Only thereafter, under the appropriate procedural strictures, may the matter be addressed in federal court. 45 Nevius I, 852 F.2d at 470 (footnote omitted). It is apparent from this statement that we recognized that Nevius might well face procedural barriers in attempting to assert his new claims. We reject, therefore, Nevius' contention that, if we had anticipated McCleskey, we would have remanded his petition to the district court with instructions for that court to retain jurisdiction while Nevius brought his new claims or new evidence to the state courts. We had nothing in the record before us to support such a remand. 46 Even if we did not fully anticipate at the time of Nevius I the stricter standards to be imposed by McCleskey, that fact does not support a recall of our mandate. The alleged unfairness of which Nevius complains is simply a result of the fact that McCleskey is retroactive in its application to pending successive-petition cases in which a first petition preceded McCleskey. See Harris v. Vasquez, 949 F.2d 1497, 1512 (9th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 910, 112 S.Ct. 1275, 117 L.Ed.2d 501 (1992). McCleskey himself had no more warning than Nevius that his first petition might bar issues attempted to be raised in later petitions, yet McCleskey is the law. In fact, Nevius was given a very clear warning by the district court in his first federal habeas proceeding that he would be presumed deliberately to have waived his right to complain of any constitutional errors other than those set forth in the petition.Nevius argues, however, that if the state had responded promptly to the petition he filed in state court after Nevius I, instead of unaccountably delaying for five years, he would never have become subject to McCleskey. McCleskey was not decided until three years after we filed our opinion in Nevius I, and 18 months after the state district court ordered Nevada to respond to Nevius' last state habeas petition. Had Nevada responded promptly, it is possible that we would have been able to rule upon the merits of Nevius' new federal habeas petition before McCleskey came down. Even so, Nevius' claim still amounts to an assertion that retroactive application of McCleskey is inherently unjust--an argument foreclosed by McCleskey itself. 47 In any event, it is most unlikely that Nevius would have been able to avoid McCleskey no matter how prompt the state had been. We would have had to apply McCleskey if Nevius' case had been pending before us at the time McCleskey was decided. See Harris, 949 F.2d at 1512. Thus the state trial and supreme courts, the federal district court, and this court all would have had to dispose of Nevius' second collateral attack within 18 months after the state responded in state court. This result is unlikely in the extreme. Indeed, the state supreme court did not dismiss Nevius' final petition until nearly three years after the state responded. We do not agree with Nevius, therefore, that the state's delay has unfairly subjected him to McCleskey or to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. 48 We therefore decline to recall our mandate in Nevius I. IV. 49 NEVIUS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SECOND PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 50 Nevius argues in his second petition for writ of habeas corpus that the reasonable-doubt instruction given at his trial was unconstitutional, and that, as a result, his petition for writ of habeas corpus must be granted unless the state affords him a new trial. Nevius acknowledges that he did not raise his reasonable-doubt claim in his first federal habeas petition. He contends, however, that 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2)(A) permits him to raise that claim in a second federal habeas petition, because he has made a prima facie showing that the claim relies on a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable. Id. He finds the new rule in Cage v. Louisiana, 498 U.S. 39, 111 S.Ct. 328, 112 L.Ed.2d 339 (1990), in which the Supreme Court held that due process did not permit a reasonable-doubt instruction that suggest[s] a higher degree of doubt than is required for acquittal under the reasonable-doubt standard. Id. at 41, 111 S.Ct. at 329. He asserts that this rule was made retroactive by the Supreme Court in Adams v. Evatt, 511 U.S. 1001, 114 S.Ct. 1365, 128 L.Ed.2d 42 (1994), which vacated a decision of the 11th Circuit holding Cage not to be retroactive; the decision was vacated for reconsideration in light of Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275, 113 S.Ct. 2078, 124 L.Ed.2d 182 (1993). 51 Without intimating any view concerning the merits of Nevius' Cage claim, or any view regarding whether he has in fact met the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b), we conclude that he has made a prima facie showing that the application satisfies the requirements of this subsection. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(C). We therefore previously issued a separate order granting Nevius leave to file a second petition for habeas corpus. See Nevius v. McDaniel, 104 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir. Nov. 27, 1996). V.