ERNESTO MARTINEZ V. DAVID SHINN, No. 21-99006 (9th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Petitioner was convicted of first-degree murder of an Arizona police officer after a jury trial in 1997 and was sentenced to death by the state court. Petitioner moved in the district court under Rule 60(b)(6) for additional discovery to develop (1) a potential claim under Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959), that the prosecution knowingly elicited false testimony; and (2) a potential claim of actual innocence after a witness’s apparent recantation of key guilt-phase testimony. Petitioner relied on Mitchell v. United States, 958 F.3d 775 (9th Cir. 2020), for two propositions.
The Ninth Circuit denied Petitioner’s request for a certificate of appealability (COA) that would allow Petitioner to challenge the district court’s denial of his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) motion for relief from final judgment. The court agreed with Petitioner that, under Mitchell, the district court had jurisdiction to consider his Rule 60(b)(6) motion for discovery to develop potential claims, and correctly declined to dismiss the motion as a disguised second or successive petition.
Applying the factors set forth in Phelps v. Alameida, 569 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir. 2009), the court found that the holding in Mitchell, which did not disturb the underlying rules governing the discovery that Petitioner sought, did not constitute an extraordinary circumstance justifying relief from final judgment under Rule 60(b)(6). Because no reasonable jurist would disagree with the district court’s decision to deny the Rule 60(b)(6) motion, the court declined to grant Petitioner’s requested COA.
Court Description: Habeas Corpus / Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). The panel denied Ernesto Salado Martinez’s request for a certificate of appealability (COA) that would allow Martinez to challenge the district court’s denial of his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) motion for relief from final judgment, in a case in which this court previously denied Martinez’s federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Martinez was convicted of first-degree murder of an Arizona police officer after a jury trial in 1997 and was sentenced to death by the state court. Martinez moved in the district court under Rule 60(b)(6) for additional discovery to develop (1) a potential claim under Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959), that the prosecution knowingly elicited false testimony; and (2) a potential claim of actual innocence after a witness’s apparent recantation of key guilt-phase testimony. Martinez relied on Mitchell v. United States, 958 F.3d 775 (9th Cir. 2020), for two propositions: (1) that Mitchell MARTINEZ V. SHINN 3 provided the district court with jurisdiction to consider his motion for discovery to develop the potential Napue and actual innocence claims under Rule 60(b)(6) because the motion is not a disguised second or successive petition; and (2) that Mitchell constitutes an extraordinary change in the law governing post-judgment requests for discovery and therefore authorizes the district court to grant his motion under Rule 60(b)(6). The panel agreed with Martinez that, under Mitchell, the district court had jurisdiction to consider his Rule 60(b)(6) motion for discovery to develop potential claims, and correctly declined to dismiss the motion as a disguised second or successive petition. Applying the factors set forth in Phelps v. Alameida, 569 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir. 2009), the panel found that the holding in Mitchell, which did not disturb the underlying rules governing the discovery that Martinez seeks, did not constitute an extraordinary circumstance justifying relief from final judgment under Rule 60(b)(6). Because no reasonable jurist would disagree with the district court’s decision to deny the Rule 60(b)(6) motion, the panel declined to grant Martinez’s requested COA.
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.