Gerald Pizzuto, Jr. v. Al Ramirez
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 6662
| 9th Cir. | 2015Background
- Gerald Pizzuto, an Idaho death-row inmate convicted of multiple murders, sought federal habeas relief; his initial petition was denied and many claims were held procedurally defaulted by state courts.
- After Martinez v. Ryan, Pizzuto filed a Rule 60(b) / 60(d) motion to reopen his federal habeas judgment, arguing Martinez excused procedural default for three claims and alleging the state committed fraud on the federal court.
- The three claims at issue: (Claim 13) judicial bias by trial judge George Reinhardt at guilt/sentencing; (Claim 14) extrajudicial contacts between Reinhardt and jurors; (Claim 20) trial/appellate counsel Nick Chenoweth had an undisclosed conflict of interest from a personal relationship with Judge Reinhardt.
- District court held Claims 13–14 were not the type of ineffective-assistance claims covered by Martinez, treated Claim 20 as potentially Martinez-eligible but not substantial, and rejected the fraud-on-the-court allegation for lack of clear-and-convincing evidence.
- Ninth Circuit affirms: Martinez is limited to ineffective-assistance claims (trial or appellate), Claims 13–14 are not such claims, Claim 20 fails to show the required actual conflict or cause/prejudice under Martinez, and fraud-on-the-court was not established.
Issues
| Issue | Pizzuto's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 60(b) may be used to reopen judgment based on Martinez to excuse state procedural defaults | Martinez supplies extraordinary circumstances to reopen; three defaulted claims are Martinez-eligible | Such use would be a disguised successive habeas unless claims properly framed; Martinez is limited | Rule 60(b) motion was proper for these arguments, but Martinez is limited and claims fail on the merits |
| Whether Martinez extends beyond ineffective-assistance claims to judicial-bias claims (Claims 13–14) | Claims 13–14 should be treated as Martinez-eligible because counsel’s failures allowed the bias to persist | Martinez is a narrow exception limited to Sixth Amendment ineffective-assistance claims | Martinez does not extend to judicial-bias claims; Claims 13–14 are not eligible |
| Whether Claim 20 (conflict of interest by counsel) satisfies Martinez cause-and-prejudice | Chenoweth’s relationship with judge created an actual conflict causing counsel’s failure and procedural default should be excused | No actual conflict shown; Chenoweth acted to disqualify the judge and sought relief, undermining conflict claim | Conflict-of-interest claim is Martinez-eligible in principle, but Pizzuto failed to show cause or prejudice; Claim 20 fails |
| Whether the Idaho Attorney General’s office perpetrated a fraud on the federal habeas court justifying relief under Rule 60(b)(6) or 60(d)(3) | State withheld or failed to disclose trial improprieties to mislead the federal court | No clear-and-convincing evidence of a scheme to deceive the federal court; non-disclosure on collateral review is not the same as fraud on the court | Fraud-on-the-court not shown by clear-and-convincing evidence; relief denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Martinez v. Ryan, 132 S. Ct. 1309 (2012) (creates narrow exception allowing ineffective-assistance claims to excuse state procedural default when initial-review collateral counsel was ineffective)
- Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (2005) (distinguishes true Rule 60(b) challenges to habeas proceedings from successive habeas petitions)
- Jones v. Ryan, 733 F.3d 825 (9th Cir. 2013) (analyzes when Rule 60(b) motions are disguised successive habeas petitions)
- Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (1991) (state postconviction counsel’s errors do not generally establish cause to excuse procedural default)
- Trevino v. Thaler, 133 S. Ct. 1911 (2013) (applies Martinez to certain state systems with similar practical barriers)
- Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335 (1980) (conflict-of-interest standard requiring demonstration that an actual conflict adversely affected counsel’s performance)
- Mickens v. Taylor, 535 U.S. 162 (2002) (clarifies conflict-of-interest principles and the need to show actual adverse effect)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (standard for ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims)
- Clabourne v. Ryan, 745 F.3d 362 (9th Cir. 2014) (summarizes Martinez/Detrich framework for showing cause and prejudice)
- United States v. Estate of Stonehill, 660 F.3d 415 (9th Cir. 2011) (fraud-on-the-court requires clear-and-convincing evidence and harm to judicial integrity)