Alfred Copeland v. Charles Ryan
852 F.3d 900
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Copeland, a state prisoner convicted in Arizona and serving a lengthy sentence, filed a pro se § 2254 habeas petition alleging actual innocence to overcome AEDPA’s one‑year limitation.
- The district court found actual‑innocence claims viable on two counts and scheduled an evidentiary hearing, appointing counsel under the Criminal Justice Act (CJA).
- Two out‑of‑state witnesses were subpoenaed to give video depositions near their homes; both declined to travel. The court ordered counsel for both sides to attend the depositions.
- Copeland’s appointed counsel moved ex parte asking the State to reimburse deposition costs and counsel travel; the district court granted those motions under Fed. R. Crim. P. 15(d) and Rule 6(c) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases.
- The State appealed interlocutorily; the Ninth Circuit accepted collateral‑order jurisdiction to review the reimbursement orders.
Issues
| Issue | Copeland’s Argument | Ryan (State)’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court’s order requiring the State to reimburse Copeland’s deposition and counsel travel expenses is reviewable now | Collateral‑order review is appropriate and orders were proper under Fed. R. Crim. P. 15(d) and Rule 6(c) | Orders require immediate review under collateral‑order doctrine because they compel public expenditure and would be effectively unreviewable later | Court exercised collateral‑order jurisdiction and reviewed the orders |
| Whether the court had authority to order the State to pay deposition/counsel travel expenses in a § 2254 case when the State did not request the depositions | Rules cited (Fed. R. Crim. P. 15(d) and Rule 6(c) §2254 Cases) authorize ordering the government to pay such expenses | Neither rule authorizes ordering a State to pay when the State did not request the deposition; Fed. R. Crim. P. 15 does not apply to § 2254 and Rule 6(c) conditions payment on respondent‑requested depositions | Reversed: district court lacked authority to order State reimbursement; remanded to consider CJA reimbursement instead |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Baker, 603 F.2d 759 (9th Cir. 1979) (interlocutory review of district order requiring government to pay deposition‑related expenses)
- Wiggins v. Alameda County, 717 F.2d 466 (9th Cir. 1983) (interlocutory review of order requiring state to pay costs to secure prisoner’s presence)
- Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100 (2010) (limits on collateral‑order doctrine; test whether delaying review would imperil substantial public interest)
- Will v. Hallock, 546 U.S. 345 (2006) (public fisc as substantial public interest relevant to collateral‑order review)
- Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (1995) (actual‑innocence gateway to review of untimely § 2254 petitions)
- Cunningham v. Hamilton County, 527 U.S. 198 (1999) (limits on immediate appealability under collateral‑order doctrine)