Payne v. Shinn ( 2022 )

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Christopher Mathew Payne, No. CV-20-0459-TUC-JAS 10 Petitioner, ORDER 11 v. DEATH PENALTY CASE 12 David Shinn, et al., 13 Respondents. 14 15 Petitioner Christopher Mathew Payne is an Arizona prisoner sentenced to death. 16 Pending before the Court is his Motion for Leave to File Lodged Proposed Amended 17 Petition. (Doc. 35.) Payne seeks to file an amended habeas petition that exceeds the page 18 limits set by Rule 3.5(b) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure. Respondents oppose the 19 motion, and the matter is fully briefed. (Docs. 37, 38.) 20 Discussion 21 On December 9, 2020, before Payne filed his initial petition, the Court’s Local Rules 22 were amended to add a 200-page limit for capital habeas petitions in “all new cases filed 23 as of December 1, 2020” and to “pending cases to the extent it is practical and fair.” General 24 Order 20-45, In the Matter of the Amendments to the Rules of Practice of the United States 25 District Court for the District of Arizona (D. Ariz. Dec. 9, 2020). Payne now seeks leave 26 to file an amended petition that exceeds the 200-page limit by 44 pages, asserting his case 27 was “pending” when the page limits became effective, and it would not be practical or fair 28 to apply the amendment to his case. 1 The parties disagree whether Payne’s case was “pending” on December 1, 2020, 2 and thus whether the amendments apply to his habeas petition. Payne initiated these 3 proceedings on October 27, 2020, by filing a statement of intent to file an application for 4 writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, a request for the appointment of 5 counsel, and an application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Docs. 1–3.) Payne did not file 6 his initial petition until September 17, 2021. (Doc. 28.) At that time, the Court granted 7 Payne’s unopposed motion to suspend compliance with the Court’s page limits for the 8 filing of his initial petition but did not grant Payne’s request to suspend application of the 9 page-limits to his case altogether or to his anticipated amended petition. (Doc. 26.) 10 In a case analogous to this one, the Supreme Court held that for purposes of 11 determining if a capital habeas case is pending on the effective date of amendments enacted 12 by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, a case does not become 13 “pending” until an actual application for habeas corpus relief is filed in federal court, 14 despite an applicant’s motion for the appointment of counsel or stay of execution filed 15 before that date. Woodford v. Garceau, 538 U.S. 202 (2003). The holding in Woodford 16 therefore suggests that Payne’s case was not “pending” because it was not filed until after 17 the effective date of the amendments to LRCiv 3.5(b), and thus his petition should be 18 subject to the page limits. 19 However, without deciding whether Payne’s case was pending at the time the 20 amended rule was adopted, the Court finds it would be both practical and fair to apply the 21 page limits to Payne’s case given the considerable time between the adoption and 22 incorporation of the local page limits and the lodging of Payne’s Amended Petition over 23 nine months later. 24 The Court need not decide this issue either, however, because even if the page limits 25 apply to Payne’s Amended Petition, he has demonstrated good cause to exceed the limits 26 by the requested 44 pages. Payne has lodged his proposed Amended Petition and has 27 asserted that the volume and complexity of his case demonstrate good cause to exceed the 28 page limits. The Court has reviewed Payne’s proposed Amended Petition, its claims and || their complexity, and agrees. The guilt-phase of Payne’s trial, including jury selection, 2|| lasted 17 days. (See lodged Amended Petition, at 13-14.) In state court appellate and post- 3 || conviction proceedings, Payne asserts he raised dozens of issues across approximately 300 4|| pages. (See Doc. 35 at 3.) Counsel assert they “have dedicated substantial time to revising 5 || the proposed amended petition,” (Doc. 35 at 3) while attempting to “raise all known claims 6|| for relief’ under this Court’s order, the rules and statutes governing federal habeas || petitions, and their ethical obligations. (Doc. 38 at 2.) Accordingly, based on the motion 8 || and the record before the Court, the Court finds good cause to grant Payne’s motion for 9|| leave to file an amended petition exceeding the 200-page limit of Rule 3.5(b) by 44-pages. 10 Accordingly, 11 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED granting Payne’s Motion for Leave to File the Lodged 12 || Proposed Amended Petition. (Doc. 35.) 13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Clerk file the proposed amended petition for writ of habeas corpus lodged with Payne’s motion (lodged at Doc. 37). 15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondents may file a response to the 16 || amended petition that exceeds the 200-page limit by 44 pages. (See LRCiv 3.5(b).) 17 Dated this 26th day of April, 2022. 18 A ashe. Honorable James A. Soto 21 United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3-