Bolin v. Baker
| Decision Date | 13 February 2015 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 3:07-cv-000481-MMD-VPC |
| Parties | GREGORY D. BOLIN, Petitioner, v. RENEE BAKER, et al., Respondents. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Nevada |
Before the Court for a decision on the merits is an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by Gregory Dean Bolin, a Nevada prisoner sentenced to death. (Dkt. no. 138.)
On the morning of July 15, 1995, the body of Brooklyn Ricks was found at a residential construction site in Las Vegas, Nevada.1 Ricks had been bound and gagged and, based on autopsy findings, had suffered approximately a dozen puncture wounds to the chest and back and multiple blunt force traumas to the head, neck, and extremities. In addition, an analysis of a vaginal swab taken from Ricks detected trace amounts of semen. The previous night, Ricks had worked at a video rental store (B & R Video) located in a strip mall. After closing the store with Ricks at midnight, a co-worker observed Ricks get into her pickup truck and drive past an adjacent Albertson's grocery store. On July 18, 1995, Bolin was arrested and charged with Ricks' murder.
On July 15, 1996, a jury sitting in the state district court for Clark County, Nevada, returned a verdict finding Bolin guilty of first-degree kidnaping, sexual assault, and first-degree murder. At the conclusion of the penalty phase, the jury found three aggravating circumstances and no mitigating circumstances. Bolin was sentenced to death.
On May 19, 1998, Bolin's convictions and death sentence were affirmed on direct appeal. Bolin v. State, 960 P.2d 784 (Nev. 1998). Bolin timely filed a motion for rehearing which was denied by the Nevada Supreme Court on August 27, 1998. His subsequent petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court was also denied. Bolin v. Nevada, 525 U.S. 1179 (1999).
Bolin initiated state post-conviction proceedings on April 22, 1999. On July 28, 2005, the state district court entered an Amended Findings of Facts, Conclusions of Law and Order denying Bolin's state district court petition. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed that denial of relief on June 22, 2007, and issued its remittitur on July 17, 2007. On November 19, 2007, Bolin filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court, which was denied on February 25, 2008. Bolin v. Nevada, 552 U.S. 1231 (2008).
On October 15, 2007, Bolin filed, pro se, a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C §2254 that initiated this federal proceeding. On November 9, 2007, the district court appointed the Federal Public Defender's office (FPD) to represent Bolin during his federal habeas corpus proceedings. On April 30, 2008, Bolin filed an amended petition. The FPD was subsequently relieved as counsel due to an irreconcilable conflict. On February 6, 2009, Saor Stetler was appointed as new counsel.
On July 30, 2009, Bolin filed a second amended petition. In response to the respondents' motion to dismiss based, in part, on lack of exhaustion, Bolin filed a motion for stay and abeyance to allow him to return to state court. This Court denied that motion and, on September 27, 2011, entered an order ruling upon the motion to dismiss. Confirming that numerous claims in the petition had not been exhausted in thestate court, the order gave Bolin twenty (20) days to abandon his unexhausted claims and warned him that failure to do so would result in the dismissal of his second amended petition pursuant to Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (1982).
That order precipitated a conflict between Stetler and Bolin, with Bolin disagreeing with counsel's refusal to abandon the unexhausted claims. That conflict resulted in Stetler being dismissed as Bolin's counsel on June 13, 2012. After appointment of new counsel, David Neidert and Michael Charlton, Bolin filed a notice abandoning unexhausted claims and a third amended petition on November 27, 2012. Those filings were followed by a motion to amend and a proposed fourth amended petition filed on December 15, 2012. This Court granted the motion to amend on January 9, 2013.
On April 4, 2013, the respondents filed their answer to Bolin's remaining habeas claims. Briefing on the merits of those claims concluded on January 15, 2014. In addition, Bolin has filed a motion for an evidentiary hearing with respect to certain claims that, according to him, call for additional factual development.
This action is governed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA). 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) sets forth the standard of review under AEDPA:
28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).
A decision of a state court is "contrary to" clearly established federal law if the state court arrives at a conclusion opposite that reached by the Supreme Court on aquestion of law or if the state court decides a case differently than the Supreme Court has on a set of materially indistinguishable facts. Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 405-06 (2000). An "unreasonable application" occurs when "a state-court decision unreasonably applies the law of [the Supreme Court] to the facts of a prisoner's case." Id. at 409. "[A] federal habeas court may not "issue the writ simply because that court concludes in its independent judgment that the relevant state-court decision applied clearly established federal law erroneously or incorrectly." Id. at 411.
With respect to an "unreasonable determination of the facts" under § 2254(d)(2), "[t]his is a daunting standard — one that will be satisfied in relatively few cases." Taylor v. Maddox, 366 F.3d 992, 1000 (9th Cir. 2004). It is satisfied where a state court fails to make an obvious factual finding, where it makes a factual finding under an incorrect legal standard, where it plainly misapprehends or misstates the record, where it ignores evidence that supports the petitioner's claim, and where the fact-finding process itself is defective. Id. at 1001-02. However, the factual determinations of the state court cannot be overturned unless they are "objectively unreasonable in light of the evidence presented." Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 340 (2003).
The Supreme Court has explained that "[a] federal court's collateral review of a state-court decision must be consistent with the respect due state courts in our federal system." Id. The "AEDPA thus imposes a 'highly deferential standard for evaluating state-court rulings,' and 'demands that state-court decisions be given the benefit of the doubt.'" Renico v. Lett, 559 U.S. 766, 773 (2010) (quoting Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 333, n. 7 (1997); Woodford v. Viscotti, 537 U.S. 19, 24 (2002) (per curiam)). "A state court's determination that a claim lacks merit precludes federal habeas relief so long as 'fairminded jurists could disagree' on the correctness of the state court's decision." Harrington v. Richter, 131 S.Ct. 770, 786 (2011) (citing Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652, 664 (2004)). The Supreme Court has emphasized "that even a strong case for relief does not mean the state court's contrary conclusion was unreasonable." Id. (citing Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 75 (2003)); see also Cullenv. Pinholster, 131 S.Ct.1388, 1398 (2011) () (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
"[R]eview under § 2254(d)(1) is limited to the record that was before the state court that adjudicated the claim on the merits." Pinholster, 131 S.Ct. at 1398. In Pinholster, the Court reasoned that the "backward-looking language" present in § 2254(d)(1) "requires an examination of the state-court decision at the time it was made," and, therefore, the record under review must be "limited to the record in existence at that same time, i.e., the record before the state court." Id.
For any habeas claim that has not been adjudicated on the merits by the state court, the federal court reviews the claim de novo without the deference usually accorded state courts under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). Chaker v. Crogan, 428 F.3d 1215, 1221 (9th Cir. 2005); Pirtle v. Morgan, 313 F.3d 1160, 1167 (9th Cir. 2002). See also James v. Schriro, 659 F.3d 855, 876 (9th Cir. 2011) (). In such instances, however, the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e) still apply. Pinholster, 131 S.Ct at 1401 (); Pirtle, 313 F.3d at 1167-68 ().
Lastly, the Court in Lockyer rejected a Ninth Circuit mandate for habeas courts to review habeas claims by conducting a de novo review prior to applying the "contrary to or unreasonable application of" limitations of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). Lockyer, 538 U.S. at 71. In doing so, however, the Court did not preclude such an approach. "AEDPA does not require a federal habeas court to adopt any one methodology in deciding the only question that matters under § 2254(d)(1) — whether a state court decision iscontrary to, or involved an...
To continue reading
Request your trial