Tony Goodrum v. Timothy Busby
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 10437
| 9th Cir. | 2016Background
- Goodrum, a California state prisoner, is serving a 21-year term for voluntary manslaughter.
- Conviction stemmed from a self-defense theory; central dispute was whether the decedent possessed a metal pipe.
- Police recovered a pipe under the victim’s body but could not match prints to anyone present.
- Goodrum pursued state habeas petitions; later claimed police/prosecutorial misconduct and ineffective assistance of counsel based on coerced witness testimony.
- He filed a federal habeas petition in 2007 asserting only exhausted claims; California Supreme Court denied relief later in 2007, exhausting those claims.
- In 2007 Goodrum sought to add newly exhausted claims by filing an Application for Leave to File Second or Successive Petition in this court, attaching the new petition; the September 2007 order denied the application without prejudice to refiling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Goodrum’s petition is second or successive under §2244(b) | Goodrum argues it is not second or successive | State contends it is second or successive under §2244(b) | Not second or successive; remanded for first-petition treatment |
| Whether Woods v. Carey applies to this court or only to district courts | Woods should apply; new petition should be treated as a motion to amend first petition | Woods applies to district courts; Goodrum should have sought authorization | Woods applies to this court; error in treating new petition as second/successive was reversible |
| Appropriate remedy for the court’s misdirection in September 2007 | Remedy should place Goodrum where he would be if correctly treated | Remedy contested; not specified | Remand to adjudicate June 2007 petition as a first petition; December 2011 claims evaluated as potential amendments to that petition |
| Effect of December 2011 petition on the remand process | December 2011 petition may include permissible amendments | Some claims not permissible amendments | Remand to determine which claims are permissible amendments; others governed by §2244(b)(2) |
| Whether the district court must permit amendment or transfer upon remand | Amendment as of right; transfer options | Procedural constraints as per Woods and Rule 15 | District court to adjudicate as first petition with permissible amendments; standard of review to be first-petition standard |
Key Cases Cited
- Woods v. Carey, 525 F.3d 886 (9th Cir. 2008) (new petition pending then treated as motion to amend; not second or successive)
- Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225 (U.S. 2004) (not obligated to advise pro se litigants on strategic choices)
- Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644 (U.S. 2005) (awareness of amendments as of right when no response by state)
- Muniz v. United States, 236 F.3d 122 (2d Cir. 2001) (first-petition status and amendment rights; abuse of the writ concerns)
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (U.S. 2000) (cause and prejudice or miscarriage of justice standards for second petitions)
- Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651 (U.S. 1996) (AEDPA framework and second/successive petitions)
- Panetti v. Quarterman, 551 U.S. 930 (U.S. 2007) (interpretation of 'second or successive' in §2244(b))
- Hill v. Alaska, 297 F.3d 895 (9th Cir. 2002) (definition of second or successive in habeas context)