Ryan v. Schad

Staying the issuance of the Ninth Circuit’s mandate based on its reconsidering a motion it had already denied, conflicts with Bell v. Thompson. The Ninth Circuit erred by applying Martinez rather than Pinholster.

Respondent, a death row inmate, filed a federal habeas petition to consider evidence not presented at post conviction relief (PCR) proceedings, and alleging ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC). The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s holding that Respondent's IAC claim was without merit. The Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated and remanded the case for a ruling consistent with Cullen v. Pinholster. The Ninth Circuit again affirmed the district court’s holding that the IAC claim was without merit. Respondent filed a motion to vacate judgement and remand in light of Martinez v. Ryan, which the Ninth Circuit summarily denied. After Respondent was denied certiorari, Respondent filed an Emergency Motion to Continue Stay of the Mandate pending En Banc proceedings under Dickens v. Ryan, which the Ninth Circuit construed as a motion to reconsider the Motion to Vacate and Remand under Martinez, and granted. Respondent then moved to stay the execution itself, which the Ninth Circuit panel granted. Petitioner filed a petition for rehearing and a petition for rehearing en banc which the Ninth Circuit denied.

Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari arguing that staying the issuance of the Ninth Circuit’s mandate based on its reconsidering a motion it had already denied, conflicts with Bell v. Thompson. Also, the Ninth Circuit erred by applying Martinez rather than Pinholster and that the order erred by remanding to the district court the new evidence that it had already considered. The Supreme Court held that the Ninth Circuit abused its discretion when it neglected to issue its man­date. The Ninth Circuit’s judgment is reversed, the stay of execution is vacated, and the case is remanded with instructions to issue the mandate immediately and without any further proceedings.