Riley v. Nevada Supreme Court

• Decision Date: 08 February 1991
• Docket Number: No. CV-N-90-451-ECR.,CV-N-90-451-ECR.
• Citation: 763 F. Supp. 446
• Parties: Billy Ray RILEY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. The NEVADA SUPREME COURT, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Nevada

763 F. Supp. 446

Billy Ray RILEY, et al., Plaintiffs, v.The NEVADA SUPREME COURT, et al., Defendants.^*

No. CV-N-90-451-ECR.

United States District Court, D. Nevada.

February 8, 1991.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Clark County Public Defenders Office by Stephen J. Dahl, Las Vegas, Nev., and Nevada State Public Defender by Terri Steik Roeser, Deputy, Carson City, Nev., for plaintiffs.

Office of the Atty. Gen. by Kevin Higgins, Deputy Atty. Gen., Hero's Memorial Building, Capitol Complex, Carson City, NV 89710.

ORDER & PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

EDWARD C. REED, Jr., Chief Judge.

I.INTRODUCTION

On February 20, 1990, the Nevada Supreme Court added to its Supreme Court Rules, "PART V. RULES GOVERNING PRACTICE IN CERTAIN ACTIONS IN THE DISTRICT COURTS."Part V, Rule 250 addresses procedure in capital cases.The Nevada Supreme Court added this new section to help remedy the many problems, delays and inefficiencies involved in the guilt, sentencing, and post-conviction phases of capital cases.With all due respect, we are compelled preliminarily to enjoin enforcement of Rule 250(IV)(H).

Rule 250 took effect on June 1, 1990, and establishes various procedures in all capital cases commenced on or after June 1, 1990.PlaintiffBilly Ray Riley, sentenced to death, faces part of Rule 250 on his appeal to the Nevada Supreme Court.

On September 12, 1990, plaintiffs Libby, sentenced to death, and many others represented by the Nevada State Public Defender's Office, filed a Complaint For Preliminary and Permanent Injunction and Declaratory Relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and an Application for Temporary Restraining Order in this court(Libby, et al. v. The Nevada Supreme Court, et al., CaseNo. CV-N-90-445-ECR, Docket # 1).

On September 18, 1990, plaintiffs Riley and many others represented by the Clark County Public Defender's Office, filed an Application For Temporary Restraining Order and Complaint For Preliminary and Permanent Injunction under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 with the United States District Court in Las Vegas, Nevada (Riley, et al. v. Nevada Supreme Court, et al., CaseNo. CV-N-90-451-ECR, Docket # 1).

Plaintiffs' complaints allege that various sections of Rule 250 are unconstitutional.Further, plaintiffs assert that the Nevada Supreme Court has acted unconstitutionally in some of the actions it has taken pursuant to Rule 250.Plaintiffs ask this court to enjoin the Nevada Supreme Court from continuing certain practices and procedures under the allegedly unconstitutional provisions of Rule 250.

On September 18, 1990, defendants submitted their Opposition to plaintiff Riley's Motion for Preliminary and Permanent Injunction.We consolidated the cases pursuant to the parties' Stipulation to Consolidate Causes of Action for all further proceedings, designating Riley as the base file.On December 18, 1990, we heard oral argument on the motion, and now determine whether a preliminary injunction shall issue.

II.PLAINTIFFS' ALLEGATIONS AND DEFENDANTS' RESPONSES

Plaintiffs allege that their constitutional rights to effective assistance of counsel, equal protection, and due process, have or will be violated by Rule 250,Sections (IV)(E), (F) and (H), andSections (III)(A)(3) and (4).The text of these sections is set out below, under the substantive analyses of them.

Plaintiffs argue that the mandatory time constraints and concomitant sanctions for failing to comply with those constraints under 250(IV)(E) and (H) unconstitutionally deny effective assistance of counsel to the death penalty appellants, and to non death penalty defendants represented by the public defender's offices whose cases would suffer because the public defenders would have to concentrate on death penalty appeals.

Plaintiffs also allege that Rule 250(IV)(H) denies persons that may be subject to the death penalty equal protection of the laws without a rational basis for doing so.Plaintiffs allege that appellants in non death penalty criminal cases receive at least seventy days to file an Opening Brief on Appeal under Nevada Rule of Appellate Procedure 31(a), while under Rule 250(IV)(H)defendants appealing a death penalty sentence receive only fifty days to file an Opening Brief.

Defendants counter that under minimum rationality, 250(IV)(H), which singles out death penalty appellants for special treatment, is rationally related to the legitimate state interest of ensuring that death penalty appeals are resolved efficiently.Defendants note that death penalty cases are more complex and require more care and attention than other cases.They posit that 250(IV)(H) furthers the goal of resolving death penalty cases more efficiently.

Plaintiffs assert that in practice, the Nevada Supreme Court traditionally has granted extensions of time to non death penalty cases under Rule 31(a) of the Nevada Rules of Appellate Procedure.Under Rule 250, however, the Court will grant extensions only upon "a showing of extraordinary circumstances or emergency condition."Plaintiffs argue that no rational basis exists for shortening the time for appealing a death penalty judgment as opposed to a non death penalty judgment, and subjecting death penalty defendants to harsher treatment, i.e., denying extensions of time and sanctioning a death penalty defendant's attorney for failing to comply with the time constraints.Additionally, Plaintiffs assert that the Nevada Supreme Court has applied 250(IV)(H) arbitrarily and capriciously, violating Plaintiffs' constitutional rights.

Next, Plaintiffs allege that Rule 250(III)(A)(3), requiring the district court judge, after the trial and penalty phases, to ask the defendant to state any objections he has to his trial counsel's performance, constitutes an impermissible infringement on the attorney-client relationship and jeopardizes a defendant's right to stand mute.Plaintiffs argue that asking the defendant to criticize his attorney may detrimentally affect the attorney's attitude in representing the defendant at sentencing or on appeal.This would implicate the defendant's constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel.Plaintiffs maintain that if a defendant invokes the right to remain silent and against self incrimination, his failure to allege a specific claim or any claim may be construed as a waiver and later be used against him.Plaintiffs also assert that the lay defendant may not object to something simply because he does not know that a mistake has occurred.Finally, Plaintiffs claim this provision denies them equal protection because no rational basis exists to require only death penalty defendants to face this inquiry.

Defendants counter that legitimate reasons exist to offer death penalty defendants an opportunity to object to the performance of their attorneys.First, if an error has occurred, defendants argue, the trial judge more likely will be able to remedy the situation.Second, this procedure offers defendants the opportunity to make a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel at the earliest opportunity.Third, defendants allege that this provision has not been used to assert waivers of claims by defendants.

Finally, Plaintiffs aver that Section (F) of Rule 250(IV) violates their constitutional rights in requiring defense counsel to prepare and file a sealed memorandum indicating the nature and extent of the communications between counsel and the defendant, the degree of cooperation defendant exhibited, the services counsel furnished, and the investigation counsel performed.Plaintiffs allege that requiring trial counsel to prepare and file such a memorandum impermissibly infringes upon a death penalty defendant's right to effective assistance of counsel, violates the right to avoid self incrimination, and denies equal protection.

Defendants counter that this provision vastly increases a subsequent court's ability to evaluate claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.Since death penalty cases are more complex and time consuming than others, a memorandum detailing the defense lawyer's action allows a court to make an informed decision on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.Further, the memo need contain only information relating to counsel's assistance, and remains sealed unless defendant subsequently claims ineffective assistance of counsel.

III.ABSTENTION DOCTRINES

Defendants assert that the Anti-Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2283, and the Younger abstention doctrine bar this court from hearing the merits of this case.

A. Anti-Injunction Act

The Anti-Injunction Act provides that a federal court may not grant an injunction to stay proceedings in a state court.One exception states that a federal court may enjoin state proceedings if Congress has expressly so provided.

The United States Supreme Court has held that Congress provided an exception under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, under which plaintiffs sue.Mitchum v. Foster,407 U.S. 225, 242-43, 92 S.Ct. 2151, 2162, 32 L.Ed.2d 705(1972);Miofsky v. Superior Court,703 F.2d 332, 335(9th Cir.1983).Thus, Plaintiffs are exempted from the Anti-Injunction Act.

B.Younger Abstention

In Younger v. Harris,401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669(1971), the Supreme Court held that federal courts should abstain from exercising federal jurisdiction if the exercise of jurisdiction would interfere with ongoing state court criminal proceedings, absent "extraordinary circumstances."Id. at 53, 91 S.Ct. at 755.The policy underlying Younger abstention is that state courts are perfectly capable of evaluating litigants' federal claims.

Younger applies when the state brings charges against defendant in state court, and then defendant brings a suit in federal court, becoming a civil plaintiff.To the extent plaintiffs are future criminal defendants, Younger does not apply because ongoing state court proceedings do not exist against these plaintiffs.However, we still must address the named plaintiffs' situation.

"Abstention under Younger is required...