Skidmore v. Lizarraga

Background

Carl Skidmore, a state prisoner represented by counsel, filed an amended motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), which allows a party to ask the court to change or correct a judgment. The motion challenged the court’s March 18, 2019 order denying Skidmore’s amended petition for federal review of his state conviction and sentence, as well as his request for an evidentiary hearing. The earlier judgment was entered for Joe Lizarraga, the respondent.

Skidmore argued that the earlier order used the wrong legal standard for several claims, improperly treated parts of his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim as speculative, incorrectly described trial counsel’s actions as strategic decisions, credited an allegedly incorrect description of one conviction, improperly denied permission to appeal, and inaccurately stated that his declaration was unsigned.

Rulings on the Asserted Errors

The court rejected Skidmore’s argument that it used the wrong standard when reviewing Claims 1, 2, 3, and 6 under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). For Claims 1, 2, 3, and 6, the court had limited its review to the state-court record because it treated the California Supreme Court’s summary denials as decisions on the merits. The court concluded that it had properly applied the deferential standard described by the United States Supreme Court in Harrington v. Richter and Cullen v. Pinholster. The request to reconsider the exclusion of new evidence submitted with Skidmore’s traverse was denied.

As to Claim 4, the court had reviewed the claim independently because the California Supreme Court denied it as untimely. The court maintained that Skidmore’s assertions that additional experts or investigation would have helped his defense were speculative and that neither discovery nor an evidentiary hearing was required. The motion was denied on this ground.

The court agreed that four statements in the earlier order could be read as factual findings that trial counsel actually made strategic decisions. The court explained that it had intended only to say that counsel’s actions reasonably could have been viewed as trial strategy, not to determine the actual reasons for those actions. It amended the wording accordingly while leaving unchanged its conclusion that Skidmore had not shown deficient performance or prejudice. The motion was granted in part for this correction.

The court also clarified the description of Skidmore’s conviction under California Penal Code § 653f(a). It amended the earlier order to state that Skidmore was convicted of soliciting another to commit an assault likely to cause great bodily injury, arising from a solicitation to assault the victims’ brother. The court did not grant relief on Skidmore’s underlying Eighth Amendment claim and found no showing that the wording issue affected the state court’s decision or the federal review. The motion was granted in part for this correction.

The court declined to issue a certificate of appealability, which is the permission generally required to appeal the denial of a federal habeas petition. It found that Skidmore had not shown that reasonable judges could debate the court’s assessment of his constitutional claims. The motion was denied insofar as it sought that certificate.

Finally, the court agreed to correct its description of Skidmore’s declaration. The amended order states that he submitted an unsigned and undated declaration with his traverse on January 10, 2018, and later submitted a properly signed and dated declaration filed on January 19, 2018, which the court considered. The motion was granted in part for this correction.

Disposition

The court granted in part Skidmore’s amended Rule 59(e) motion to correct errors in the earlier order and otherwise denied the motion. The court emphasized that the corrections did not change its substantive analysis or conclusions. It remained of the view that Skidmore was not entitled to relief on his claims, an evidentiary hearing, or a certificate of appealability. An amended denial order was to issue at the same time.