Opinion ID: 509516
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Insufficient Showing of Abuse of the Writ

Text: 164 The State argued before the district court that the alleged instructional error should not be adjudicated because Harris abused the writ under Rule 9(b). The district court reached the merits of Harris' claim, and thus impliedly rejected the State's Rule 9(b) argument. On appeal, the State claims Rule 9(b) provides an independently sufficient reason to affirm the District Court's rejection of this claim. 165 The State contends Harris abused the writ under Rule 9(b) because he did not raise this issue in his first petition. The State asserts that Harris' excuse for not presenting this claim in his first federal petition--the claim was not raised in petitioner's previous section 2254 petition due to neglect or ineffectiveness of petitioner's previous appointed appellate counsel [Michael McCabe]--is not sufficient to permit the district court to consider the merits of the claim. Harris' counsel responds that he did not withhold the claim for any tactical reason, but merely because he missed it. 166 The determination whether to deny a hearing or dismiss a petition is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Sanders, 373 U.S. at 18, 83 S.Ct. at 1078. 167 In Richmond, we recently addressed the procedure that is applicable where a state prisoner raises new claims in a second petition under section 2254. 774 F.2d at 960-61. We explained the appropriate three-part standard to apply in determining whether there is an abuse of the writ under Rule 9(b): 168 Previously unadjudicated claims must be decided on the merits unless the petitioner has made a conscious decision deliberately to withhold them, is pursuing needless piecemeal litigation, or has raised the claims only to vex, harass, or delay. 169 Id. at 961 (citations omitted). 170 There is no affirmative indication in the record, and the State does not claim, that Harris' counsel made a conscious decision deliberately to withhold this contention, to proceed by piecemeal litigation, to vex or harass the court or State, or to delay the proceedings. Thus, Harris' second federal petition did not constitute an abuse on this claim. 171