Baggett v. The State of Nevada ( 2024 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 Johnny Baggett, Case No.: 2:23-cv-00744-APG-MDC 4 Petitioner, Order Denying Petitioner’s Motion to Stay Without Prejudice, 5 v. Granting Petitioner’s Motion to Seal and Motion to Extend, and Granting the 6 State of Nevada, Respondents’ Motion to Seal 7 Defendant. [ECF Nos. 22, 32, 36, 39] 8 9 Petitioner Johnny Baggett has filed a counseled first amended petition (ECF No. 20) and 10 now requests a stay while he litigates his state postconviction petition. ECF No. 36. Also 11 pending are Baggett’s motion to seal (ECF No. 22) and motion to extend (ECF No. 39) as well as 12 the respondents’ motion to seal (ECF No. 32) and motion to dismiss (ECF No. 35). 13 Background 14 The state court sentenced Baggett to life without the possibility of parole for two counts 15 of first degree murder with the use of a deadly weapon; burglary; robbery with use of a deadly 16 weapon; two counts of assault with a deadly weapon; three counts of discharging a firearm at or 17 into an occupied structure, vehicle, aircraft, or watercraft; three counts of discharging a weapon 18 where a person might be endangered; and carrying a concealed firearm or other deadly weapon. 19 The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. 20 Baggett filed a state habeas petition that was denied. The Nevada Court of Appeals 21 affirmed the denial of relief. Baggett initiated this federal habeas corpus proceeding and 22 following the appointment of counsel, he filed his first amended petition. ECF No. 20. The 23 respondents move to dismiss Grounds 2 through 6 as unexhausted. ECF No. 35. In June 2024, 1 Baggett returned to state court and filed a second state habeas petition raising the same claims 2 that the respondents argue, and Baggett concedes, are unexhausted. Baggett’s second state 3 habeas petition remains pending before the state court. 4 Discussion 5 A. Motion to Stay 6 A district court is authorized to stay an unexhausted petition in “limited 7 circumstances,” to allow a petitioner to present unexhausted claims to the state court without 8 losing his right to federal habeas review due to the relevant one-year statute of 9 limitations. Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 273–75 (2005); Mena v. Long, 813 F.3d 907, 912 10 (9th Cir. 2016) (holding that district courts have authority to stay and hold in abeyance both 11 mixed petitions and “fully unexhausted petitions under the circumstances set forth 12 in Rhines”). Under the Rhines test, “a district court must stay a mixed petition only if: (1) the 13 petitioner has ‘good cause’ for his failure to exhaust his claims in state court; (2) the unexhausted 14 claims are potentially meritorious; and (3) there’s no indication that the petitioner intentionally 15 engaged in dilatory litigation tactics.” Wooten v. Kirkland, 540 F.3d 1019, 1023 (9th Cir. 16 2008) (citing Rhines, 544 U.S. at 278). 17 The Ninth Circuit has acknowledged that the Rhines “good cause” standard does not 18 require “extraordinary circumstances.” Wooten, 540 F.3d at 1024 (citing Jackson v. Roe, 425 19 F.3d 654, 661–62 (9th Cir. 2005)). But courts “must interpret whether a petitioner has ‘good 20 cause’ for a failure to exhaust in light of the Supreme Court’s instruction in Rhines that the 21 district court should only stay mixed petitions in ‘limited circumstances’.” Wooten, 540 22 F.3d at 1024 (citing Jackson, 425 F.3d at 661). Courts must also “be mindful that AEDPA aims 23 to encourage the finality of sentences and to encourage petitioners to exhaust their claims in state 1 court before filing in federal court.” Wooten, 540 F.3d at 1024 (citing Rhines, 544 U.S. at 276– 2 77). 3 Baggett asserts that he can overcome all applicable procedural bars because he has newly 4 presented evidence of actual innocence including an exculpatory fingerprint report, two 5 witnesses describing the murder suspect as Hispanic, evidence that the murders were gang 6 related, and evidence that ballistics matching is unreliable. ECF No. 36 at 3-4. He filed his 7 second state habeas petition raising his unexhausted claims and newly presented evidence of 8 actual innocence. He argues that he is required to return to state court because his actual 9 innocence argument provides an avenue for having his claims heard in state court. ECF No. 40 at 10 8. 11 Baggett does not demonstrate good cause to excuse his failure to present his unexhausted 12 claims and actual innocence argument to the Nevada state courts. It appears that Baggett was 13 represented by counsel during the post-conviction proceedings before the state court and 14 although his motion lists the newly presented evidence, Baggett does not assert that post- 15 conviction counsel rendered ineffective assistance for failure to develop or pursue the legal or 16 factual basis for his unexhausted claims or to present new evidence in support of his actual 17 innocence argument. See Blake v. Baker, 745 F.3d 977, 982-83 (9th Cir. 2014) (finding that 18 ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel or a lack of postconviction counsel can 19 constitute good cause under Rhines.) He does not argue that the newly presented evidence was 20 not previously known to him or that it was not previously available. Moreover, it is not clear that 21 a return to state court to argue actual innocence as a basis to excuse procedural default is 22 required. For these reasons, Baggett’s showing of good cause is inadequate to support a Rhines 23 stay. Accordingly, I deny Baggett’s motion to stay the petition without prejudice. Baggett has 1 30 days to renew his motion to stay. If he chooses not to file a renewed motion to stay, he must 2 file his opposition to the respondents’ motion to dismiss within 45 days of entry of this order. 3 B. Motions to Seal 4 Baggett seeks leave to file under seal (ECF No. 22): Exhibit 21, Petitioner’s Presentence 5 Investigation Report (“PSI”) (ECF No. 23), dated May 3, 2018. Under Nevada law, the PSI is 6 “confidential and must not be made a part of any public record.” Nev. Rev. Stat. § 176.156(5). 7 In addition, the respondents seek leave to file under seal (ECF No. 32): Exhibit 77, Supplement 8 to Baggett’s Sentencing Memorandum (ECF No. 33-1). Exhibit 77 contains confidential 9 information including medical records and school records. 10 Having reviewed and considered the matter in accordance with Kamakana v. City and 11 County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006), and its progeny, I find that a compelling 12 need to protect the petitioner’s safety, privacy, and/or personal identifying information 13 outweighs the public interest in open access to court records. Accordingly, Baggett and the 14 respondents’ motions to seal are granted, and Exhibits 21 and 77 are considered properly filed 15 under seal. 16 C. Motion to Extend 17 Baggett seeks an extension of time to file his reply in support of his motion to stay. ECF 18 No. 39. I find that the request is made in good faith and not solely for the purpose of delay, and 19 therefore, good cause exists to grant Baggett’s motion. 20 Conclusion 21 I THEREFORE ORDER: 22 1. Petitioner Johnny Baggett’s Motion to Stay (ECF No. 36) is denied without prejudice. 23 Baggett has 30 days to renew his motion to stay. If he chooses not to file a renewed ] motion to stay, he must file his opposition to the respondents’ motion to dismiss 2 within 45 days of entry of this order. 3 2. Baggett’s Motion to Seal (ECF No. 22) is granted. Exhibit 21 1s considered properly 4 filed under seal. 5 3. The respondents’ Motion to Seal (ECF No. 32) is granted. Exhibit 77 is considered 6 properly filed under seal. 7 4. Baggett’s unopposed first Motion to Extend (ECF No. 39) is granted nunc pro tunc. 8 DATED this 18th day of October, 2024. 10 ANDREW P. GORDON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23