Robert Ybarra, Jr. v. Timothy Filson
869 F.3d 1016
9th Cir.2017Background
- In 1979 Robert Ybarra committed an aggravated murder/sexual assault and was sentenced to death; he later raised an Atkins (intellectual disability) claim to avoid execution.
- Ybarra pursued multiple state and federal habeas petitions over decades; his Atkins claim was litigated in Nevada state court (evidentiary hearing, denial) and the Nevada Supreme Court issued a reasoned opinion in 2011 denying relief.
- After the 2011 opinion, Ybarra submitted additional expert reports (Warnick, Mack, Greenspan) to the Nevada Supreme Court on rehearing/reconsideration; the court struck Warnick but denied reconsideration while apparently considering Greenspan.
- Ybarra then filed a Rule 60(b) motion in federal court to reopen habeas proceedings on his Atkins claim and attached the Greenspan and Mack reports; the district court denied relief, deferring to the Nevada Supreme Court under AEDPA and declining to consider Greenspan under Pinholster.
- The Ninth Circuit vacated and remanded the district court’s order as to the Atkins claim, holding the district court erred in its AEDPA analysis (in light of Brumfield) and improperly refused to consider the Greenspan report; but it affirmed dismissal of Ybarra’s Hurst-based Rule 60(b) motion and denied leave to file a successive petition based on Hurst.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Ybarra) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal court properly deferred under AEDPA to Nevada Supreme Court’s finding that Ybarra is not intellectually disabled | Nevada’s decision unreasonably applied clinical standards; state court contradicted diagnostic guidelines and ignored favorable expert evidence | Nevada’s decision reasonably applied Atkins and clinical standards; malingering finding supports the result | Vacated and remanded for reconsideration — district court erred in AEDPA analysis and must reassess (including Brumfield guidance) |
| Whether district court could consider Greenspan report under Pinholster (limited record) | Greenspan report was part of the record before Nevada Supreme Court’s unexplained 2012 order and thus may be considered | Report was improperly filed on rehearing and Pinholster bars consideration of evidence not before the state court’s reasoned decision | District court erred in refusing to consider Greenspan; remanded to consider its effect because the 2012 unexplained order likely adjudicated the claim and may include Greenspan in the record |
| Whether Ybarra’s Atkins Rule 60(b) motion was a disguised second or successive habeas petition (jurisdiction) | Motion sought to revive an Atkins claim previously abandoned for procedural reasons, analogous to Martinez‑Villareal, not a new successive petition | If treated as successive, district court lacks jurisdiction absent circuit authorization | Motion was not a successive petition; district court had jurisdiction to consider it (Martinez‑Villareal analog) |
| Whether Hurst v. Florida provides relief on collateral review / whether Hurst claim was properly raised via Rule 60(b) or successive petition | Hurst establishes a new rule that renders Nevada’s sentencing procedures unconstitutional and should apply retroactively | Hurst does not apply retroactively; Ybarra’s Hurst motion is a disguised successive petition and requires authorization | Ybarra’s Hurst Rule 60(b) motion was a disguised successive petition (affirmed); leave to file a successive petition denied because Hurst does not apply retroactively |
Key Cases Cited
- Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (prohibits executing intellectually disabled defendants)
- Hall v. Florida, 572 U.S. 701 (constrains strict IQ cutoffs in Atkins inquiries)
- Moore v. Texas, 137 S. Ct. 1039 (states must follow medical standards when assessing intellectual disability)
- Brumfield v. Cain, 135 S. Ct. 2269 (state court factual findings inconsistent with clinical standards can be unreasonable under AEDPA)
- Pinholster v. Ayers, 563 U.S. 170 (§2254(d) review limited to the state-court record adjudicating the claim on the merits)
- Martinez‑Villareal v. Stewart, 523 U.S. 637 (motion to reopen habeas to pursue claim previously dismissed for procedural technicality is not necessarily a successive petition)
- Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (distinguishes bona fide Rule 60(b) motions from disguised successive petitions)
- Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (jury must find facts increasing penalty to death-eligibility)
- Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (invalidated Florida’s judge-centric death-eligibility finding)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (AEDPA unreasonable-application standard is highly deferential)