Robert Henry Moormann v Dora B. Schriro
672 F.3d 644
9th Cir.2012Background
- Moormann, convicted in 1985 of first-degree murder of his adoptive mother, sentenced to death, and scheduled for execution in 2012.
- Murder occurred in an Arizona motel while Moormann was on furlough from prison for kidnapping.
- This court previously addressed Moormann's habeas petitions in 2005 and 2010, with remand to consider colorable claims about trial counsel and mitigation.
- Moormann seeks a second or successive federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3) or, alternatively, recall of the mandate to file a belated Rule 60(b) motion.
- Arizona Supreme Court denied stay and review requests in 2012; Moormann's claims are deemed exhausted for § 2254 purposes.
- The court must apply the stringent § 2244(b)(2) standard to determine whether a new or successive petition may be filed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Moormann may file a second or successive petition under § 2244(b)(2). | Moormann argues new rule or newly discovered facts justify filing. | Standard is extremely stringent; extraordinary circumstances required for recall or new petition. | Denied; Moormann failed to meet the stringent criteria. |
| Whether Maples abandonment doctrine can excuse default and permit belated relief. | Abandonment by counsel constitutes cause for default under Maples. | Moormann was always counseled; not abandonment; Maples retroactivity assumed but inapplicable here. | Not satisfied; abandonment claim rejected. |
| Whether Moormann is mentally retarded under Atkins to avoid execution. | Recent testing suggests IQ below 70; could invoke Atkins protection. | Arizona defines mental retardation with childhood onset; current IQ tests not establishing childhood retardation; no federal violation. | Arizona definition controls; no clearly established federal law support for Atkins relief. |
| Whether a stay of execution should be granted pending resolution. | Likely to succeed on merits; needs a stay to pursue habeas relief. | No substantial likelihood of relief; stay inappropriate. | Stay denied; relief denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Maples v. Thomas, 132 S. Ct. 912 (2012) (abandonment can justify belated reopening of a matter)
- Carrington v. United States, 503 F.3d 888 (9th Cir. 2007) (extraordinary circumstances required to recall mandate)
- Hill v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 573 (2006) (stay of execution requires significant probability of success on the merits)
- Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002) (death penalty barred for mentally retarded individuals; states develop enforcement mechanisms)
- Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S. 312 (1993) (mental retardation is a static condition; standard for enforcement)