October Term, 2019 Anthony K. Anderson
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
No. ________ OCTOBER TERM, 2019 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ANTHONY K. ANDERSON, Petitioner, v. BRIAN WILLIAMS, WARDEN; ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondents. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS RENE L. VALLADARES Federal Public Defender of Nevada JASON F. CARR Counsel of Record Assistant Federal Public Defender 411 E. Bonneville, Ste. 250 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 (702) 388-6577 (702) 388-6419 (Fax) [email protected] Counsel for Petitioner Anderson Petitioner Anthony K. Anderson asks for leave to file the attached petition for writ of certiorari without prepayment of costs and to proceed in forma pauperis. Petitioner has been granted leave to so proceed in the federal district court for the District of Nevada and in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Counsel for Anderson was appointed by the United States District Court for the District of Nevada under 18 U.S.C. § 3599(a)(2). Granting leave to proceed in forma pauperis is authorized by Supreme Court Rule 39.1. Dated this 4th Day of March 2019. Respectfully submitted, Rene Valladares Federal Public Defender of Nevada /s/ Jason F. Carr ________________________________ JASON F. CARR Counsel of Record Assistant Federal Public Defender 411 E. Bonneville Ave., Ste. 250 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 (702) 388-6577 [email protected] Counsel for Petitioner Anderson ii No. ________ OCTOBER TERM, 2019 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ANTHONY K. ANDERSON, Petitioner, v. BRIAN WILLIAMS, WARDEN; ATORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondents. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI RENE L. VALLADARES Federal Public Defender of Nevada JASON F. CARR Counsel of Record Assistant Federal Public Defender 411 E. Bonneville, Ste. 250 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 (702) 388-6577 (702) 388-6419 (Fax) [email protected] Counsel for Petitioner Anderson QUESTIONS PRESENTED Whether a Federal District Court Unfairly Precluded pro se Prisoner Litigant Anthony Anderson’s Future Ability to a Federal Habeas Review of his Nevada Convictions When the District Court Ruled Upon a Protective Petition on the Merits and Without Briefing with the Knowledge that Anderson was Still Exhausting his Post-Conviction Claims in Nevada Courts? i LIST OF PARTIES There are no parties to the proceeding other than those listed in the caption. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS OPINIONS BELOW ...................................................................................................... 1 JURISDICTION ............................................................................................................. 1 CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS............................................. 1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE ....................................................................................... 4 A. Nevada Criminal Charges and Anderson’s Guilty Plea ......................... 4 B. Post-Sentencing Proceedings and Petitioner’s Three Rounds of Federal Habeas Litigation ....................................................................... 5 1. The First Federal Petition ............................................................. 5 2. The Second Federal Habeas Petition ............................................ 6 3. The Third Habeas Petition ............................................................ 7 C. The Ninth Circuit’s Decision .................................................................... 8 REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION ............................................................ 9 A. Litigants are Encouraged to File Protective Petitions ......................... 11 1. The District Court Should have Warned Anderson of the Consequences of Ruling on his Single Issue First Petition on the Merits ..................................................................................... 12 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................. 15 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ............................................................................ 16 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ..................................................................................... 17 iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Federal Cases Page(s) Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375 (2003) ............................................ 10, 12, 13 Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (2010) ............................................................... 14 Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5 (1980) ...................................................................... 10 Lott v. Mueller, 304 F.3d 918 (9th Cir. 2002) ....................................................... 11 Mena v. Long, 813 F.3d 907 (9th Cir. 2016) ........................................................... 8 Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408 (2005) ............................................... 7, 8, 9, 11 Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225 (2004) ................................................................. 10, 13 Ramirez v. Yates, 571 F.3d 993 (9th Cir. 2009) ...................................................... 9 Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005) .......................................................... 8, 9, 11 Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (1982) ..................................................................... 11 Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 420 (2000) ................................................................ 9 Federal Statutes and Rules 18 U.S.C. § 2254 (2018) ........................................................................................... 6 18 U.S.C. § 2255 (2018) ......................................................................................... 10 28 U.S.C. § 1254 (2018) .......................................................................................... 1 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (2018) .................................................................................. 2, 7, 8 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2018) .............................................................................. 1, 2, 3, 9 Nevada Statutes and Rules Nev. R. App. P. 4 ............................................................................................... 6, 12 Nev. Rev. Stat. § 200.508 .................................................................................... 4, 5 Nev. Rev. Stat. § 201.230 ........................................................................................ 4 iv OPINIONS BELOW On December 16, 2016, the United States District Court for the District of Nevada filed a written order dismissing Petitioner Anderson’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus. (See Appendix (App.) C, 4-23; see also App. B (accompanying civil judgment).) The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit filed an unpublished memorandum denying Anderson’s appeal of that decision on December 3, 2018. (See App. A, 1-4.) Both decisions are unpublished. JURISDICTION The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit filed its unpublished memorandum and order denying Anderson’ federal post-conviction appeal on December 3, 2019. (See App. A, 1-4.) Anderson mails and electronically files this petition within ninety days of the entry of that order; given March , 2019, was Washington’s Birthday. See Sup. Ct. R. 13(1); see also Sup. Ct. R. 30(1) (excluding the last day of the period if it falls on a federal holiday). Accordingly, this Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1254. CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS The requirements for filing a successive petition containing previously unadjudicated claims are statutory and read as follows: (b)(1) A claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application under section 2254 that was presented in a prior application shall be dismissed. (2) A claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application under section 2254 that was not presented in a prior application shall be dismissed unless— (A) the applicant shows that the claim relies on a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable; or (B)(i) the factual predicate for the claim could not have been discovered previously through the exercise of due diligence; and 1 (ii) the facts underlying the claim, if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the applicant guilty of the underlying offense. (3)(A) Before a second or successive application permitted by this section is filed in the district court, the applicant shall move in the appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider the application. (B) A motion in the court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider a second or successive application shall be determined by a three-judge panel of the court of appeals. (C) The court of appeals may authorize the filing of a second or successive application only if it determines that the application makes a prima facie showing that the application satisfies the requirements of this subsection. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) (2018). This petition implicates Title 28 U.S.C. § 2254, which states in pertinent part: The Supreme Court . shall entertain an application for writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court