Leavitt v. Arave

Summary

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of Richard Leavitt’s motions in two related appeals. It held that Leavitt had not shown a substantial ineffective-assistance claim warranting relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) and Martinez v. Ryan, and that the district court lacked authority to compel forensic testing of crime-scene evidence for clemency purposes under 18 U.S.C. § 3599(f). Judge Reinhardt concurred in the judgment while criticizing the application of habeas and harmless-error doctrines in capital cases.

Holdings

1. Leavitt was not entitled to relief because he failed to show that any of his underlying ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claims was substantial under Martinez and Strickland. The alleged attorney errors either were not deficient performance or did not prejudice the defense.
2. Leavitt was not entitled to an order compelling forensic testing because he failed to show good cause or explain how the requested testing would substantiate his underlying ineffective-assistance claim.
3. Section 3599(f) provides funding authority only and does not empower a federal court to order a third party to comply with counsel's investigative request for clemency purposes.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Martinez v. Ryan entitled Leavitt to relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) based on procedurally defaulted ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claims.
2. Whether the district court could compel forensic testing of crime-scene blood samples in support of Leavitt's Rule 60(b) motion or state clemency proceedings.
3. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 3599(f) authorized the district court to order a third party to comply with an investigation request for clemency purposes.

Disposition

affirmed