MURRAY HOOPER V. DAVID SHINN

FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 15 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MURRAY HOOPER, No. 22-99012
Petitioner-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:22-cv-01935-SMM
v. OPINION
DAVID SHINN, Director, Arizona
Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation
and Reentry; STACI IBARRA, Warden,
Eyman Prison; RODNEY CARR, Warden,
Florence Prison,
Respondents.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Stephen M. McNamee, Senior District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 15, 2022*
San Francisco, California
Before: Jacqueline H. Nguyen, Mark J. Bennett, and Ryan D. Nelson, Circuit
Judges.
Per Curiam Opinion
*
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
1
PER CURIAM:
Murray Hooper is scheduled to be executed in Arizona on Wednesday,
November 16, 2022. On November 15, 2022, Hooper filed a second-in-time
habeas petition in the district court under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, alleging a freestanding
innocence claim, violations under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and
Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959), and a due process violation based on the
surviving victim’s unreliable pretrial identification. The district court dismissed
the Brady and Napue claims, finding that they were unauthorized second or
successive claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). It also dismissed the due
process claim, finding that it had been presented in Hooper’s first federal petition.
The district court determined that the actual innocence claim was not cognizable in
habeas, and alternatively, even if it were, Hooper failed to meet the demanding
standard for freestanding actual innocence claims.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253. We affirm the
dismissal of the due process and actual innocence claims. We agree with the
district court that the Brady and Napue claims are second or successive claims
subject to § 2244(b)(2). We construe Hooper’s notice of appeal as an application
for authorization to file a second or successive petition as to those claims. So
construed, we deny Hooper’s request to file a second or successive petition
2
because he has failed to satisfy the stringent standards under the Antiterrorism and
Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”). See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2).
I
Hooper was hired to murder Pat Redmond. On New Year’s Eve 1980,
Redmond, Marilyn Redmond (Redmond’s wife), and Helen Phelps (Marilyn’s
mother) were home preparing for a festive dinner when Hooper and his
coconspirators forced their way into the home at gunpoint. They demanded
jewelry, money, and guns. They herded Redmond, Marilyn, and Helen into the
main bedroom, forced them to lie face down on the bed, and bound and gagged
them. One or all the intruders shot each victim in the head, and one slashed
Redmond’s throat with a knife. Redmond and Helen died, but Marilyn
miraculously survived.1
In 1982, Hooper was convicted on eleven felony counts, including two
counts of first-degree murder. See Hooper v. Shinn, 985 F.3d 594, 602 (9th Cir.
2021). The court sentenced Hooper to death for the two first-degree murders. Id.
at 610. Hooper filed his first federal habeas petition in 1998. Id. at 613. The
1
We provide a brief summary of Hooper’s crimes, as we described them in
detail in our prior decision denying Hooper’s habeas petition. See Hooper v.
Shinn, 985 F.3d 594, 599–601 (9th Cir. 2021). We note that we previously denied
Hooper’s application for leave to file a second or successive petition that would
have alleged violations under Brady. Hooper v. Shinn, 859 F. App’x 79 (2021).
3
district court denied the petition, and we affirmed. Id. at 600. The Supreme Court
denied certiorari. Hooper v. Shinn, 142 S. Ct. 1376 (2022).
After the Arizona Supreme Court issued a warrant of execution, setting an
execution date of November 16, 2022, Hooper filed his sixth and seventh petitions
for post-conviction relief (“PCR”) in the Arizona Superior Court.2 His sixth PCR
petition stated a claim for actual innocence based on a report by Dr. Geoffrey
Loftus, an expert in human perception and memory. According to Hooper,
because Dr. Loftus’s opinions would have undermined Marilyn’s key eyewitness
testimony, no reasonable factfinder would have found him guilty of the murders.
Hooper’s seventh PCR petition asserted violations under Brady and Napue,
and a due process violation based on Marilyn’s unreliable pretrial identification.
All the claims in his seventh PCR petition rested on a single piece of allegedly
“new” evidence: Marilyn, contrary to her trial testimony and the testimony of
officers, had been shown a photo lineup of Hooper and was unable to identify him
before she identified Hooper in a live lineup. According to Hooper, this “new”
evidence exists based on a single statement made by the Maricopa County
Attorney’s Office in its October 28, 2022, letter to the Arizona Board of Executive
Clemency (“State’s Letter”): “On February 21, 1981, Hooper and Bracey were
2
“From 1986 through 2017, Hooper filed five state post-conviction
petitions.” Hooper, 985 F.3d at 612.
4
arrested in Chicago. Marilyn was flown out and participated in live line ups with
them. She had previously been unable to pick them out of a paper lineup.”
(emphasis added).3
During the clemency hearing on November 3, 2022, Hooper argued that the
State’s reference to a “paper lineup” showed that there was a
never-before-disclosed photo lineup in which Marilyn had failed to identify
Hooper. The prosecutor explained that there was no evidence that Marilyn had
seen a photo lineup of Hooper and that to the extent the State’s Letter suggested
otherwise, it was an inadvertent misstatement. The prosecutor explained that
Marilyn had been shown sketches of a white man and a black man who was later
identified as William Bracy (Hooper’s co-defendant), but Marilyn could not
identify the subjects of those drawings. Marilyn had also failed to identify Ed
McCall (the third murderer) in two photo lineups. The prosecutor explained that
those were the “paper lineup[s]” referenced in the State’s Letter and that the State
had no evidence that Marilyn had ever seen a photo of Hooper before identifying
him in the live lineup. In its response to Hooper’s seventh PCR petition, the State
maintained its position expressed at the clemency hearing.4
3
The State submitted a revised letter to the Board on November 1, 2022, but
this quoted language remained unchanged.
4
On November 3, 2022, the Arizona Board of Executive Clemency
unanimously voted to deny relief.
5
The Superior Court consolidated the sixth and seventh PCR petitions and
held an evidentiary hearing on November 10, 2022. As relevant here, Jeffrey
Sparks, attorney for the State, avowed at the evidentiary hearing “that victim
Marilyn Redmond was not shown a printed lineup prior to her live identification of
[Hooper], that no evidence of any such lineup exists, and that counsel Sparks had
personally verified the explanation given by the prosecutor to the Arizona Board of
Executive Clemency.” Dr. Loftus testified at the evidentiary hearing. As found by
the Superior Court, Dr. Loftus testified that “much of the research forming the
foundation of [Hooper’s] current [innocence] claim was conducted decades ago,”
and “much of the research cited in his report was developed in the 1990s and
2000s.” The Superior Court also found that Dr. Loftus’s report was “cumulative to
that which [Hooper] presented at trial and would not have substantially
undermined Marilyn Redmond’s testimony to such an extent that the judgment
would have changed.”5
5
While we are likely required to give deference to the Superior Court’s
findings regarding Dr. Loftus, see 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1), Hooper’s actual
innocence claim based on Dr. Loftus’s report fails even without any deference, as
discussed below.
6
On November 14, 2022, the Superior Court issued its ruling dismissing all
of Hooper’s claims.6 In doing so, it expressly credited the State’s explanation that
the statement at issue in the State’s Letter was a misstatement:
This Court accepts the State’s explanation of the misstatement, the
State’s avowal that [Hooper] is in possession of the same materials used
by the State to prepare its letter opposing clemency, and the State’s
avowal that there is no evidence that Marilyn Redmond was shown a
printed lineup including [Hooper] before she identified him in person.
Hooper filed a petition for review in the Arizona Supreme Court. On
November 14, 2022, the Arizona Supreme Court granted review but denied relief.
The Arizona Supreme Court found “that [Hooper’s] claim the State has failed to
disclose a paper lineup, including allegations of misconduct and unethical conduct
has no evidentiary support and no basis in fact.” In reaching that finding, the
Arizona Supreme Court relied in part on the prosecutor’s retraction and
explanation at the clemency hearing.
Hooper then filed the instant second-in-time habeas petition in federal
district court, reasserting the claims alleged in his sixth and seventh state PCR
petitions. After finding that the Brady and Napue claims were second or
6
The Superior Court also denied Hooper’s motion for reconsideration of the
court’s denial of his request for discovery. Hooper had asked that “he be allowed
complete access to the State’s file and that he be able to interview the two
prosecutors responsible for drafting a letter in opposition to his request for
clemency.” The Superior Court denied the motion for reconsideration based on its
acceptance of attorney Sparks’s avowal at the evidentiary hearing.
7
successive and the due process claim had been presented in his first petition, the
district court dismissed those claims. See Brown v. Muniz, 889 F.3d 661, 667 (9th
Cir. 2018) (“If the petition is second or successive, then the district court lacks
jurisdiction and must dismiss the petition unless and until the court of appeals
grants an application to file it.” (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A))). The district
court also dismissed the actual innocence claim, finding that it was not cognizable
in habeas, and alternatively, even if it were, that Hooper failed to meet the
demanding actual innocence standard. The district court issued a certificate of
appealability (COA) on the Brady, Napue, and due process claims. Hooper
immediately appealed.
We treat Hooper’s notice of appeal as a request for a certificate of
appealability (COA) on the actual innocence claim, see Jones v. Ryan, 733 F.3d
825, 832 n.3 (9th Cir. 2013) (construing an appeal as an application for a COA),
and we grant Hooper a COA on the actual innocence claim.7 Because we hold that
7
“A certificate of appealability may issue . . . only if the applicant has made
a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(2). “At the COA stage, the only question is whether the applicant has
shown that jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s resolution of his
constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are
adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.’” Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct.
759, 773 (2017) (quoting Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003)). Under
the circumstances, we believe that, as to the actual innocence claim, “jurists could
conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed
further.” Id.8
Hooper’s Brady and Napue claims are second or successive, we also treat his
appeal as a request for authorization to file a second or successive habeas petition.
See id. at 840–41 (construing an appeal as a request for authorization to file a
second or successive petition).
II
A
“We review a district court’s dismissal of a habeas petition as second or
successive de novo.” Brown, 889 F.3d at 666. “Our review of an application to
file a second or successive habeas petition is governed by the standard set forth in
AEDPA, as is our determination of whether a second-in-time habeas petition is
second or successive under AEDPA.” Id. at 666–67.
B
We first address Hooper’s due process claim based on Marilyn’s supposed
unreliable pretrial identification. We agree with the district court that this claim is
barred because Hooper presented it in his first federal habeas petition.
“A claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application
under section 2254 that was presented in a prior application shall be dismissed.”
28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1). “[A] claim ‘is successive if the basic thrust or gravamen
of the legal claim is the same, regardless of whether the basic claim is supported by
new and different legal arguments . . . [or] proved by different factual
9
allegations.’” Gulbrandson v. Ryan, 738 F.3d 976, 997 (9th Cir. 2013) (ellipsis
and second alteration in original) (quoting Babbitt v. Woodford, 177 F.3d 744, 746
(9th Cir. 1999)).
Hooper’s first petition asserted that he “was denied due process of law in
violation of the Fourteenth Amendment because the pretrial identification by
Marilyn Redmond was unduly suggestive.” His present claim has the same “basic
thrust or gravamen”: “Marilyn Redmond’s pretrial identification was unduly
suggestive, inadmissible, and tainted her in court identification of Mr. Hooper such
that it should have been precluded.” That his present claim is based on new
evidence is irrelevant. See Babbitt, 177 F.3d at 746 (“[W]e will not consider new
factual grounds in support of the same legal claim that was previously presented.”).
Because Hooper’s due process claim was presented in his first petition, we
affirm the district court’s dismissal of the claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1).
C
We also agree with the district court that Hooper’s Brady and Napue claims
are second or successive for purposes of federal court review. In this circuit, “[i]t
is now understood that a federal habeas petition is second or successive if the facts
underlying the claim occurred by the time of the initial petition, and if the petition
challenges the same state court judgment as the initial petition.” Brown, 889 F.3d
10at 667 (citations omitted).8 “[A] factual predicate accrues at the time the
constitutional claim ripens—i.e., when the constitutional violation occurs.” Id. at
672.
Hooper’s Brady and Napue claims are based on the alleged “new” factual
predicate that Marilyn was shown a photo lineup of Hooper. But the only evidence
supporting that alleged fact is the statement in the State’s Letter, which the
Superior Court found was a misstatement and which the Arizona Supreme Court
found had “no evidentiary support and no basis in fact.” We must accept those
findings, unless Hooper can show that they are wrong by clear and convincing
evidence. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1); cf. King v. Trujillo, 638 F.3d 726, 730–31
(9th Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (applying § 2254(e)(1), which requires us to presume
that a state court’s factual finding is correct unless the applicant can rebut it by
clear and convincing evidence, in determining whether to permit the applicant to
file a second or successive petition). Hooper has failed to do so.9 Because the
8
Below Hooper did not cite or discuss Brown in arguing that his petition
was not second or successive. As a three-judge panel we are bound by Brown. See
Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 899 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). As discussed
below, Brown compels the conclusion that Hooper’s Brady and Napue claims are
second or successive.
9
Hooper tries to rebut the state courts’ findings by arguing that it was
improper for the courts to rely on Sparks’s avowal at the evidentiary hearing. But
the Arizona Supreme Court did not solely rely on Sparks’s avowal. It also relied
11
factual predicate supporting Hooper’s Brady and Napue claims does not exist, his
claims fail.
But even were we to assume that the factual predicate exists, it existed
before Hooper’s trial, well before the time Hooper filed his first federal habeas
petition in 1998.10 And the alleged constitutional violations based on that factual
predicate occurred before 1998. The alleged Brady violation—the State’s
suppression of a photo lineup of Hooper—occurred before Hooper’s trial. The
alleged Napue violation—the State’s knowing use of false testimony—occurred
during trial. Thus, Hooper’s Brady and Napue claims and the facts underlying
them all accrued before he filed his first petition. His Brady and Napue claims are
therefore second or successive.
D
Turning to Hooper’s actual innocence claim, we agree with the district
court’s alternative holding: assuming it is a cognizable habeas claim,11 Hooper
on the prosecutor’s retraction at the clemency hearing and Hooper’s failure to
present any evidence that the statement was not a mistake.
10
That Hooper became aware of the fact recently is irrelevant. See Brown,
889 F.3d at 672–73 (rejecting argument that factual predicate accrues at the time
the petitioner becomes aware of it).
11
See McQuiggin v. Perkins, 569 U.S. 383, 392 (2013) (“[The Supreme
Court has] not resolved whether a prisoner may be entitled to habeas relief based
on a freestanding claim of actual innocence.”).
12
cannot meet the demanding standard. “The standard for establishing a freestanding
claim of actual innocence is extraordinarily high and the showing for a successful
claim would have to be truly persuasive.” Jones v. Taylor, 763 F.3d 1242, 1246
(9th Cir. 2014) (cleaned up) (citation omitted).
Hooper’s claim appears to rest primarily on Dr. Loftus’s recent report and
other “evidence developed through the years.” He claims that this evidence would
cast doubt on the State’s case, including by undermining Marilyn’s identification
of Hooper as one of the murderers. But “[e]vidence that merely undercuts trial
testimony or casts doubt on the petitioner’s guilt, but does not affirmatively prove
innocence, is insufficient to merit relief on a freestanding claim of actual
innocence.” Jones, 763 F.3d at 1251. And, as noted in our prior opinion denying
Hooper’s petition, the evidence was overwhelming and extended beyond Marilyn’s
testimony. For example, Nina Marie Louie testified that she saw Hooper in
Phoenix on New Year’s Eve and, the next day, one of Hooper’s coconspirators
confessed to her that Hooper was one of the murderers. Hooper, 985 F.3d at 603–
04. An officer also testified that Valinda Lee Harper called the police the day after
the murders and implicated Hooper in the murders. Id. at 604. George
Campagnoni testified that Hooper was in Phoenix on New Year’s Eve, Hooper and
his coconspirators possessed property that looked like property owned by
Redmond, and he drove Hooper and another coconspirator to the airport around
13
midnight on New Year’s Eve and they had airline tickets bearing false names. Id.
at 604. Arnold Merrill also testified that Hooper was in Phoenix on New Year’s
Eve, Hooper and his coconspirators had several items that might have come from
the Redmond home, and one of the coconspirators confessed to Merrill that Hooper
was one of the murderers. Id. at 605.
The evidence Hooper points to does not affirmatively prove his innocence.
Given the overwhelming evidence implicating Hooper as the murderer, he fails to
show actual innocence.
III
As discussed above, Hooper’s Brady and Napue claims are second or
successive. Thus, we next discuss whether they meet the requirements under
§ 2244(b)(2)(B).
A
Because Hooper does not argue that his claims rely on a new rule of
constitutional law, we may grant Hooper’s application only if he makes a “prima
facie showing,” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(C), that his petition would satisfy the
requirements in § 2244(b)(2)(B):
(i) the factual predicate for the claim[s] could not have been discovered
previously through the exercise of due diligence; and
(ii) the facts underlying the claim[s], 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
14
factfinder would have found the applicant guilty of the underlying
offense.
“In other words, [Hooper] must make a prima facie showing his claim (1) is
based on newly discovered evidence and (2) establishes that he is actually innocent
of the crimes alleged.” Bible v. Schriro, 651 F.3d 1060, 1064 (9th Cir. 2011) (per
curiam); see also King, 638 F.3d at 729 (explaining that § 2244(b)(2) has been
interpreted to require an actual innocence standard). A “prima facie showing” is “a
sufficient showing of possible merit to warrant a fuller exploration by the district
court.” Woratzeck v. Stewart, 118 F.3d 648, 650 (9th Cir. 1997) (per curiam)
(quoting Bennett v. United States, 119 F.3d 468, 469 (7th Cir. 1997)).
B
As discussed above, Hooper’s Brady and Napue claims all hinge on the
alleged “new” factual predicate that Marilyn was shown a photo lineup of Hooper.
But the only evidence supporting that alleged fact is the lone statement in the
State’s Letter, which was a misstatement, unsupported by any evidence. Thus,
Hooper offers no newly discovered evidence to support the alleged factual
predicate for his Brady and Napue claims. In other words, Hooper cannot make a
prima facie showing that he meets the stringent standards under § 2244(b)(2)(B)
because he fails to show that the alleged new evidence—that Marilyn saw a photo
lineup of Hooper—even exists. See Woratzeck, 118 F.3d at 651 (“Woratzeck must
15
make a prima facie showing that this evidence exists, and that it would exonerate
him under the stringent standard of section 2244(b)(2).”).
IV
We AFFIRM the district court. It properly dismissed Hooper’s due process
and actual innocence claims. It also correctly determined that the Brady and
Napue claims are second or successive subject to § 2244(b)(2). Because Hooper
has failed to meet the requirements under § 2244(b)(2)(B) as to his Brady and
Napue claims, his petition, which we construe as a request for leave to file a
second or successive petition, is DENIED.12 For the foregoing reasons, we also
deny Hooper’s motion for a stay of execution.
12
“The grant or denial of an authorization by a court of appeals to file a
second or successive application shall not be appealable and shall not be the
subject of a petition for rehearing or for a writ of certiorari.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(E).
16