Lopez v. Ryan
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 9779
| 9th Cir. | 2012Background
- Lopez seeks federal habeas relief for a second time; prior panel decision described in Lopez v. Ryan, 630 F.3d 1198 (9th Cir. 2011) is referenced; Martinez v. Ryan (2012) later expanded the exception to procedural default for initial-review PCR counsel ineffectiveness; Arizona had issued a death warrant and set execution for May 16, 2012; district court denied Lopez’s Rule 60(b) motion seeking relief under Martinez; Lopez argues PCR and trial-counsel ineffectiveness should excuse default and stay execution; the court analyzes Martínez and related standards and ultimately denies reopening as not showing a substantial underlying claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Martinez allows overcoming procedural default in Lopez’s case | Lopez argues Martinez excuses default due to PCR counsel ineffectiveness | Ryan argues Martinez does not require reopening here | No, Martinez does not compel reopening; underlying claim not substantial |
| Whether Rule 60(b) relief was proper under Phelps factors | Lopez seeks Rule 60(b) relief based on Martinez | District court properly applied governing standards | District court did not abuse discretion; factors weigh against reopening |
| Whether the underlying IAC claim is substantial under Martinez | New information would have changed the sentencing outcome | Claim remains not substantial given the record and nature of the crime | Claim not substantial; no prejudice shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Martinez v. Ryan, 132 S. Ct. 1309 (Supreme Court 2012) (narrow exception to Coleman for initial-review PCR counsel ineffectiveness; requires underlying IAC be substantial)
- Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (Supreme Court 1991) (procedural-default rule; PCR lawyer’s negligence generally not cause unless limited exception)
- Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (Supreme Court 2005) (extraordinary-circumstances standard for Rule 60(b)(6) relief; congressional policy of finality)
- Phelps v. Alameida, 569 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir. 2009) (six-factor test for extraordinary-circumstances analysis on Rule 60(b) motions)