Stanley v. Chappell

Background

This death-penalty case was before the court on two related motions. Stanley moved to temporarily lift the stay of the federal proceedings so he could file a second amended petition for habeas corpus relief. His former appointed lawyers separately moved for permission to file an amicus curiae brief, meaning a submission by a nonparty intended to assist the court.

The court had stayed the federal proceedings on June 1, 2018, so Stanley could return to state court to exhaust some federal habeas claims. His state-court exhaustion petition remained pending before the Alameda County Superior Court, which had stayed its consideration pending a decision by the California Supreme Court in In re Friend, No. S256914.

Stanley’s former counsel moved to withdraw in June 2020, citing changing career circumstances and Stanley’s repeated dissatisfaction with their representation. The court accepted the withdrawal and appointed the Capital Habeas Unit of the Office of the Federal Defender for the Eastern District of California as successor counsel in October 2020.

The Proposed Amendment

Through successor counsel, Stanley moved to lift the stay so he could amend his petition. The proposed amendment would delete some factual allegations from Claim 3, which alleged that the prosecution committed Batson violations at Stanley’s trial. Successor counsel said the allegations relied on documents of negligible evidentiary value and doubtful admissibility. The respondent did not oppose Stanley’s motion.

Stanley’s former counsel opposed the proposed amendment and sought to file an amicus brief. They disputed successor counsel’s assessment of the documents, argued that authentication concerns were premature, and said that the stay meant this was not the time to amend the finalized petition. Stanley and the respondent both opposed the former counsel’s request to participate as amicus.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that district courts have broad discretion to permit amicus briefs, but an amicus is not a party and generally cannot control the litigation. The traditional role of an amicus is to assist in a matter of general public interest, supplement the parties’ lawyers’ work, and identify law that may have been overlooked.

The court concluded that former counsel’s proposed brief exceeded that limited role. In the court’s view, former counsel were attempting to have the court resolve a tactical disagreement with successor counsel about how to plead and prove one habeas claim. The former counsel no longer represented a party and had withdrawn after recommending the federal defender’s capital habeas unit as successor counsel. The court found no authority supporting that expanded use of an amicus brief.

As to Stanley’s motion, the court applied Rule 15(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which generally requires leave to amend a pleading to be freely given when justice so requires. The court stated that the standard strongly favors amendment and found that undue delay, bad faith or a dilatory motive, futility, and prejudice to the opposing party did not appear applicable. The court accepted that successor counsel had made a professional judgment that Claim 3 could be better proved without the disputed factual allegations.

Disposition

The court DENIED the Motion of Amicus Curiae for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief (Docket No. 348). It GRANTED Stanley’s unopposed Motion to Temporarily Lift Stay of Proceedings and Request to File Second Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Docket No. 346). Stanley was ordered to file the second amended petition by January 27, 2021. The court stated that it would enter an order reimposing the stay after the petition was filed. The order disposed of Docket Nos. 346 and 348.