Fernando Navarro Hernandez v. John Henley, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Nevada denies Fernando Navarro Hernandez’s Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment denying his Fifth-Amended Petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The court rejects Hernandez’s arguments concerning evidence from state postconviction proceedings, ineffective assistance of counsel, jury composition and misconduct, capital sentencing, and the effect of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo on AEDPA deference. The court also denies a Certificate of Appealability regarding the motion and directs the Clerk to reclose the action.

Holdings

1. The court may not consider evidence generated during Hernandez's second state postconviction proceeding because he failed to comply with Nevada's procedural rules by not timely raising the ineffectiveness of his first postconviction counsel.
2. Hernandez failed to show manifest error in the court's conclusions that counsel was not constitutionally ineffective concerning the jurors' purchase of a gift and that the gift did not prejudice the verdict or sentence.
3. The court did not commit manifest error by denying relief on the jury-composition claim and by denying discovery and an evidentiary hearing because Hernandez failed to diligently develop the state-court record and therefore was subject to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2) and the restrictions recognized in Ramirez.
4. Loper Bright does not overrule or dilute AEDPA deference, and the district court must continue to apply controlling Supreme Court precedent and AEDPA's statutory rule of decision.
5. The Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment was denied because Hernandez identified no manifest error, newly discovered evidence, manifest injustice, or intervening change in controlling law.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court committed manifest error by refusing to consider evidence generated during Hernandez's second state postconviction proceeding.
2. Whether the district court committed manifest error in denying habeas relief on ineffective-assistance and jury-misconduct claims concerning jurors' purchase of a gift for the victim's daughter.
3. Whether the district court committed manifest error in denying relief on the claim that counsel failed to ensure a racially and ethnically representative jury venire, while also denying discovery and an evidentiary hearing.
4. Whether the district court committed manifest error in denying relief on the claim challenging the Nevada Supreme Court's striking of an aggravating circumstance and reweighing of the remaining aggravating and mitigating circumstances.
5. Whether Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo requires a less restrictive form of AEDPA deference.

Disposition

other