Ross v. Williams, No. 16-16533 (9th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 15(c)(1)(B) and 10(c) apply in habeas proceedings. The en banc court reversed the district court's dismissal of petitioner's amended habeas corpus petition as time-barred. Petitioner challenged his Nevada state conviction for theft-related offenses, asserting multiple claims, including the ineffective assistance of counsel.
The en banc court held that claims in petitioner's amended petition that share core operative facts in common with those in his original petition relate back to the original petition and should not have been dismissed. However, the en banc court did not typically consider in the first instance issues not discussed by the district court, and thus the en banc court remanded for the district court to consider which of the claims in the amended petition are supported by facts incorporated into the original petition.
Court Description: Habeas Corpus. The en banc court reversed the district court’s judgment dismissing as untimely Ronald Ross’s amended habeas corpus petition challenging his Nevada state conviction for theft-related offenses, and remanded. Proceeding pro se, Ross timely filed a habeas petition in the district court. Using a court-provided form, he asserted eight claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. He also attached an order from the Nevada Supreme Court affirming the denial of his state petition for postconviction relief. After AEDPA’s one-year statute of limitations had expired, Ross filed with counsel’s assistance an amended petition that included multiple claims, some of which resembled those identified in Ross’s original pro se federal petition and discussed in the attached state court order. Dismissing the amended petition as untimely, the district court rejected Ross’s argument that its claims related back to the original, timely petition. Explaining that Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 15(c)(1)(B) and 10(c) apply in habeas proceedings, the en banc court held that if a petitioner attempts to set out habeas claims by identifying specific grounds for relief in an original petition and attaching a court decision that provides greater detail about the facts supporting those claims, that petition can support an amended petition’s relation back. The en banc court held that the exhibit containing the ROSS V. WILLIAMS 3 Nevada Supreme Court order was a part of the original petition for all purposes under Rule 10(c), and that the original petition therefore set out or attempted to set out conduct, transactions, or occurrences to which claims in the amended petition could relate back under Rule 15(c)(1)(B). The en banc court wrote that the central question is whether the amended and original petitions share a common core of operative facts, as those facts are laid out in the amended petition and “attempted to be set out” in the original petition; and that if an exhibit to the original petition includes facts unrelated to the grounds for relief asserted in that petition, those facts were not “attempted to be set out” in that petition and cannot form a basis for relation back. Applying this framework, the en banc court wrote that Ross’s amended petition and his original petition with the attached exhibit share a common core of operative facts— for example, defense counsel’s purported failure to object to the state witness’s distraction theft testimony —such that the amended petition relates back. The en banc court rejected arguments (1) that the Nevada Supreme Court order is not a “written instrument” within the meaning of Rule 10(c) so it should not be considered part of Ross’s petition and cannot provide facts to which the amended petition could relate back, and (2) that a petition can only incorporate an attachment by clearly and repeatedly referencing it. The en banc court wrote that a petition need not be pleaded with sufficient particularity to support relation back. Observing that Habeas Rule 2(c)’s particularity requirement applies to pleading, the en banc court explained that the requirements of relation back are explicitly more generous. The en banc court saw no basis to conclude that, in general, allowing a petitioner to incorporate facts from attachments into his petition for relation back 4 ROSS V. WILLIAMS purposes will saddle district courts with a greater volume of documents to review than the Habeas Rules expressly contemplate. The en banc court remanded for the district court to consider which of the claims in the amended petition (beyond the claim regarding the failure to object to expert testimony) are supported by facts in the original petition. Judge Ikuta, joined by Judges Callahan and M. Smith, dissented. She wrote that the majority’s interpretation of Rule 10(c) in the habeas context—to mean that the facts contained in “a written instrument that is an exhibit to a” habeas petition are “part of the pleading for all purposes” but only to the extent the facts are arguably related to the petition’s grounds for relief—is unworkably broad and complex, inconsistent with the Habeas Rules, AEDPA’s statute of limitations, and the Supreme Court’s guidance on applying Rule 10(c) in this context. ROSS V. WILLIAMS 5
This opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on July 19, 2018.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.