Schad v. Ryan
732 F.3d 963
9th Cir.2013Background
- Schad is under a death sentence in Arizona for first degree murder (1985).
- Federal habeas proceedings began in 1997 and have followed extensive appellate history, including Supreme Court review in 2013 (Ryan v. Schad).
- Schad sought to reopen his federal petition via Rule 60(b) alleging ineffective assistance of state sentencing counsel for not presenting mitigating evidence of childhood abuse and its effect on his adult mental state.
- The district court and this court previously denied related Martinez-based relief, ultimately leading to dismissal of Schad’s Rule 60(b) motion as a second or successive petition.
- The majority holds Schad’s Rule 60(b) motion is barred as second or successive, while dissenting views would treat it as a new IAC claim requiring merits review.
- The opinion emphasizes the interplay among Cullen v. Pinholster, Martinez v. Ryan, and related Ninth Circuit authority in determining whether new evidence can constitute a new claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Schad's Rule 60(b) motion presents a new claim or a second petition | Schad asserts a new IAC claim based on adult mental illness evidence. | The motion seeks to reopen an already adjudicated habeas petition; it is a second or successive petition. | Rule 60(b) motion denied as second/successive petition. |
| Whether Schad's new IAC claim based on adult mental illness is a new claim under Martinez | New evidence shows distinct ineffective assistance at sentencing and is not simply cumulative. | Evidence and theory are part of the same underlying claim previously adjudicated. | Majority treats as not a new claim; Martinez not available. |
| Application of Pinholster and Martinez to bar consideration of new evidence | Martinez creates cause to excuse procedural default, allowing merit review of new evidence. | Pinholster bars consideration of evidence not presented in state court; Martinez exceptions are narrow. | Pinholster controls; Martinez does not permit merit review in this Rule 60(b) context. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cullen v. Pinholster, 131 S. Ct. 1388 (2011) (limits federal review to evidence presented in state court on collateral review)
- Martinez v. Ryan, 132 S. Ct. 1309 (2012) (ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel may excuse procedural default)
- Ryan v. Schad, 133 S. Ct. 2548 (2013) (per curiam; remand/mandate issues in habeas context)
- Schad v. Ryan, 671 F.3d 708 (9th Cir. 2011) (initial IAC mitigation claim focused on childhood background)
- Dickens v. Ryan, 704 F.3d 816 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc discussion on new IAC claims arising from mitigation evidence)