Cooper v. Neven
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 6731
9th Cir.2011Background
- Cooper was convicted of multiple offenses, including first-degree murder with a deadly weapon, and is serving two consecutive life sentences without parole.
- He pursued numerous state petitions for post-conviction relief dating from 1986 through 1997, with mixed results and several denials or dismissals by state courts.
- He filed federal habeas petitions in 1993, 1997, and 1997–1999, with exhaustion and timeliness issues shaping the proceedings.
- Cooper's third state habeas petition led Nevada courts to consider Brady/Napue claims; the state supreme court later held there was no prejudice from Brady violations but did not revisit all claims on the merits.
- In 2008 the district court dismissed Cooper’s federal petition as procedurally barred; on appeal the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Grounds 3A and 4 are procedurally defaulted | Cooper contends Nevada’s law-of-the-case basis was misapplied to deny 3A/4 on merits. | District court properly applied state-law default rules; grounds were denied for failure to show cause and prejudice. | Grounds 3A and 4 are procedurally defaulted in part; reversed in part for Ground 3A on default grounds. |
| Whether Grounds 7A(3), 8(5), and 8(3) were exhausted or defaulted | Grounds re-presented in 2006 should be considered exhausted rather than defaulted. | District court properly treated as defaulted due to earlier proceedings; exhaustion not complete. | Grounds 7A(3), 8(5), and 8(3) are exhausted and not procedurally defaulted; the district court’s dismissal reversed for these grounds. |
| Whether Grounds 9 and 10 are cognizable on federal habeas review | Claims arise from state post-conviction proceedings and are reviewable on federal habeas | Franzen bar precludes federal review of errors in state post-conviction proceedings | Grounds 9 and 10 are not cognizable in federal habeas review and are dismissed on that basis. |
| Whether Brady and Napue-related claims are reviewable and whether state grounds were independent | Nevada relied on federal Brady/Napue analysis and not on independent state grounds; review should not be barred. | State grounds were independent and adequate, precluding federal review. | Brady and Napue claims are not procedurally defaulted due to lack of independent state grounds; remand for further proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838 (1999) (exhaustion and fair presentation required in habeas)
- Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270 (1971) (fair presentation requires federal basis and facts)
- Anderson v. Harless, 459 U.S. 4 (1982) (fair notice of federal grounds for relief)
- Beaty v. Stewart, 303 F.3d 975 (9th Cir. 2002) (exhaustion and procedural default interplay)
- Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (1991) (cause and prejudice, procedural default)
- Daniels v. United States, 532 U.S. 374 (2001) (timeliness and tolling in AEDPA context)
- White v. Lewis, 874 F.2d 599 (9th Cir. 1989) (prejudice showing in defaulted claims)
- Sawyer v. Whitley, 505 U.S. 333 (1992) (fundamental miscarriage of justice standard)
- Bennett v. Mueller, 322 F.3d 573 (9th Cir. 2003) (deep dive on independence of state grounds)
- Greene v. Lambert, 288 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2002) (exhaustion where merits considered by state court)
- Castille v. Peoples, 489 U.S. 346 (1989) (exhaustion tied to merits adjudication in state courts)
- Vang v. Nevada, 329 F.3d 1069 (9th Cir. 2003) (independence of state grounds analysis)
- Moran v. McDaniel, 80 F.3d 1261 (9th Cir. 1996) (merits review when state court addressed issues on merits)
- LaCrosse v. Kernan, 244 F.3d 702 (9th Cir. 2001) (state procedural grounds independence analysis)
- Franzen v. Brinkman, 877 F.2d 26 (9th Cir. 1989) (habeas review limits re: state post-conviction proceedings)