Alfonso Blake v. Renee Baker
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 4886
| 9th Cir. | 2014Background
- Blake, a Nevada death-row inmate, filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 asserting ineffective assistance of trial counsel.
- His petition was mixed (exhausted and unexhausted claims), triggering dismissal under Lundy unless stayed to exhaust.
- Blake sought a Rhines stay and abeyance, arguing good cause existed because his state-post-conviction counsel allegedly failed to uncover abuse and mental-health evidence.
- The district court denied the stay, rejecting the good-cause showing as insufficient and treating post-conviction IAC as per se unacceptable for good cause.
- Blake appealed, arguing that state-post-conviction IAC can constitute good cause and that the unexhausted claims were potentially meritorious.
- The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that post-conviction IAC can satisfy Rhines’ good-cause requirement and remanded for grant of a stay.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can post-conviction IAC constitute good cause for Rhines stay? | Blake argues post-conviction IAC is valid good cause. | State contends IAC by post-conviction counsel cannot justify a stay. | Yes; post-conviction IAC can amount to good cause under Rhines. |
| Did Blake meet the other Rhines prongs (meritorious unexhausted claims and no dilatory tactics)? | Unexhausted claims are potentially meritorious and not dilatory. | Argues either prongs are not met. | The other two prongs were satisfied; only good cause was at issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (U.S. 2005) (stay-and-abeyance available in limited circumstances for mixed petitions)
- Lundy v. Daly, 455 U.S. 509 (U.S. 1982) (total exhaustion prior to federal review; dismissal of mixed petitions)
- Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408 (U.S. 2005) (reasonable confusion about timeliness ordinarily constitutes good cause)
- Martinez v. Ryan, 132 S. Ct. 1309 (U.S. 2012) (IAC by state post-conviction counsel can excuse procedural default under limited Martinez framework)
- Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (U.S. 1991) ( Coleman/Martinez framework for cause in procedural defaults)
- Wooten v. Kirkland, 540 F.3d 1019 (9th Cir. 2008) (lack of knowledge not sufficient; need detailed justification)
- Jackson v. Roe, 425 F.3d 654 (9th Cir. 2005) (good cause does not require extraordinary circumstances)