Alvaro Quezada v. Albert Scribner

Good Law
604 F. App'x 550
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 26, 201513-55750California927 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

1. Alvaro Quezada first appealed his Brady and Napue claims to this court in 2008. Shortly after the parties filed their briefs in that appeal, Quezada filed a motion to remand based on newly discovered evidence. This court granted Quezada’s motion and remanded the case to the district court “with instructions to conduct an evidentiary hearing” and “to determine whether the new facts render[ed] Queza-da’s Brady claim unexhausted.” Quezada v. Scribner, 611 F.3d 1165, 1168 (9th Cir.2010). Further, this court instructed that “[i]f the district court concludes that the new facts render Quezada’s Brady claim unexhausted, the district court should consider whether[, in light of the new facts,] Quezada is procedurally barred from proceeding in state court.” Id. If the district court concluded that, under California law, Quezada was not procedurally barred, “the court [was to] stay and abey federal proceedings so that Quezada may exhaust his claims in state court.” Id. Only if the district court determined that Quezada’s claims were exhausted and clearly barred by California layv was the district court to determine whether Quezada could demonstrate cause and prejudice or…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.