Summary
The Ninth Circuit held that the district court should have conducted an evidentiary hearing to resolve conflicting affidavits concerning whether a prison lockdown constituted cause for Joseph Buffalo's procedural default in failing to seek review of his state collateral attack. The court reversed and remanded without deciding the ultimate cause-and-prejudice issue or the merits of Buffalo's ineffective-assistance claim.
Holdings
- The notice of appeal sufficiently demonstrated the State's intent to appeal and complied with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(c), giving the Ninth Circuit jurisdiction.
- The court would not treat the State's notice of appeal as a motion for reconsideration or dismiss the appeal pending reconsideration because the State never filed a separate reconsideration motion and the notice primarily sought appellate review.
- When conflicting affidavits create a factual dispute concerning the cause of a state procedural default in a federal habeas case, the district court must hold an evidentiary hearing unless other evidence in the record is dispositive or the state court has made relevant factual findings.
- The court did not decide whether Buffalo ultimately established cause or prejudice, or whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance; those questions were left for the district court after the evidentiary hearing.
Questions Presented
- Whether the State's notice of appeal sufficiently manifested a clear intent to appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(c).
- Whether the State's notice of appeal should be treated as a motion for reconsideration that nullified or postponed the appeal.
- Whether the district court erred by resolving conflicting affidavits concerning the alleged prison-lockdown impediment without holding an evidentiary hearing.
- Whether Buffalo's failure to timely seek Hawaii Supreme Court review of the denial of his Rule 40 petition was excused by cause under the cause-and-prejudice standard.
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded
Cases Cited (29)
- Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72 (1977)(followed)
- Peter Starr Production Co. v. Twin Continental Films, Inc., 783 F.2d 1440, 1442 (9th Cir. 1986)(followed)
- McMillan v. Barksdale, 823 F.2d 981, 983 (6th Cir. 1987)(followed)
- Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir. 1987)(distinguished)
- Cel-A-Pak v. California Agricultural Labor Relations Board, 680 F.2d 664, 667 (9th Cir. 1982) (per curiam)(followed)
- Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 60-61 (1982) (per curiam)(distinguished)
- United States v. Gargano, 826 F.2d 610, 611 (7th Cir. 1987)(distinguished)
- Jackson v. Cupp, 693 F.2d 867, 868-69 (9th Cir. 1982) (per curiam)(followed)
- Granberry v. Greer, 481 U.S. 129 (1987)(followed)
- Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 515-20 (1982)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 29.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…