No.
`
`IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
`
`IN RE TARYN CHRISTIAN
`Petitioner,
`
`On Petition for Writ of Mandamus
`To the United States Court of Appeals
`For the Ninth Circuit
`
`PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS
`
`TARYN CHRISTIAN
`Petitioner Pro Se
`Saguro Correctional Center
`A4004046 LC-05
`1252 E. Arica Road
`Eloy,AZ. 85131
`
`

`

`QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW
`
`Should a writ of mandamus issue directing the Court of Appeals to
`
`decide the merits of a motion to recall its appellate mandate on the grounds of after-
`
`discovered fraud on the court, and to avoid a miscarriage of justice, pursuant to this
`
`Court's precedents?
`
`Did the Court of Appeals act properly when it subverted the rules of
`
`appellate procedure, foreclosing Petitioner's access to the court—which effectively
`
`avoided redress and insulated review of the government's fraud directed upon the
`
`Ninth Circuit, or did it so clearly abuse its discretion as to justify the drastic and
`
`extraordinary remedy of issuance of the writ of mandamus?
`
`Should this Court exercise its inherent authority to address the
`
`exceptional circumstances of after-discovered fraud perpetrated upon the United
`
`States Supreme Court—where, in 2010, in opposition to a petition for a writ of
`
`certiorari, the government's prosecutors intentionally created the false impression
`
`to the Court, that Petitioner's case was "materially" distinguishable from Chambers
`
`v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 (1973), when in truth, Petitioner's case may arguably
`
`exceed the corroboration in Chambers? In these exceptional circumstances, should
`
`the Court act to purge the record of fraud to protect the integrity of its own process
`
`and that of the federal courts below?
`
`

`

`PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS
`
`Pursuant to Rule 14.1, the following list identifies all of the parties appearing
`
`here and in the court below.
`
`The Petitioner here and in the United States Court of Appeals for the
`
`Ninth Circuit is Taryn Christian.
`
`Clayton Frank, Director, State of Hawaii Department of Public Safety,
`
`was the named Respondent in the lower-court proceedings.
`
`For purposes of this mandamus action, the United States Court of
`
`Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is the Respondent.
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`i
`QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW .................................................
`INTERESTED PARTIES..........................................................................ii
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES......................................................................
`JUDICIAL ORDER BELOW ..................................................................... 1
`OPINIONS BELOW.................................................................................2
`JURISDICTION......................................................................................2
`CONSTITUTIONAL, STATUTORY AND OTHER
`PROVISIONS INVOLVED........................................................................2
`
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE....................................................................3
`
`I. Petitioner's Habeas Corpus Proceedings in the
`DistrictCourt...........................................................................4
`
`II. Appellate Proceeding in the Ninth Circuit
`Courtof Appeals........................................................................6
`
`III. The District Court Denies Petitioner's Valid Rule 60(b)(3)
`Motion Raising 'Fraud on the Court' as an "Application" to
`File a "Second or Successive" § 2254 Petition—Contrary
`to Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S.524 (2005)....................................
`
`7
`
`IV. After the State's Repeated Requests for Extensions to
`Respond, Petitioner Filed a Motion to Hold in Abeyance
`the Transferred Motion and a Motion Recall the Appellate
`Mandate Due to Evidence of Fraud on the Court............................8
`
`The Panel Disregarded Petitioner's Timely Petition
`for Rehearing En Banc and Entered the
`September 15, 2011 Order Disposing of the Case...................8
`
`A Separate Panel of the Ninth Circuit Disregarded
`Gonzalez, and Denied the Motion as an "Application"
`to File Successive Petition..................................................8
`V. Petitioner's Underlying Rule 60(b)(d)(3) Proceeding
`in the District Court..................................................................9
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(Continued)
`
`Page
`
`(a) The Court Orders the Production of Specific
`BradyMaterials.........................................................10
`
`VT. The Newly Developed Evidentiary Record of the
`Rule 60(b)(d)(3) Proceedings Related to Withheld
`Brady Identification Evidence...............................................10
`The District Court Issued Third Order for
`Brady Materials..........................................................15
`
`The State's Civil Attorneys—in Written Closing
`Argument—Enter a Judicial Binding Admission
`that Schmidt Initially Identified Burkhart......................16
`
`The District Court Denied Rule 60 Relief
`Without Ruling on the Brady Violations
`Underlying Fraud—and Without Factual-Findings
`and Conclusions of Law Required Under Rule 52
`Supportingthe Judgment..............................................17
`
`The Ninth Circuit Denied Mandamus Relief
`Despite District Court's Failure to Decide Brady
`and Failure to Make Factual- Findings .............................
`When New Developments Proved Attorneys Worked a
`Fraud on the Rule 60 Court—the State Reversed its
`Position While the District Court Stood Silent.........................18
`
`18
`
`Petitioner's Underlying Motion to Recall the Mandate..............19
`
`REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT...................................................20
`ARGUMENT..........................................................................................
`23
`1.
`
`THIS COURT'S PRECEDENTS REQUIRED THE
`COURT OF APPEALS TO ADDRESS A MOTION
`TO RECALL THE MANDATE UPON A SHOWING
`OF FRAUD ON THE COURT ......................................................
`A. Fraud on the Court Standard for Recall of the
`Appellate Mandate..............................................................25
`
`23
`
`iv
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(Continued)
`
`Page
`
`As in Hazel-Atlas, Petitioner's Case Involves
`Manufactured Evidence...................................................27
`
`The Lower Court's Failure to Address Fraud on
`the Court is in Square Conflict with Decisions
`of Other Circuits and its Own Circuit.................................28
`THIS COURTS PRECEDENTS REQUIRED THE
`COURT OF APPEALS TO ADDRESS A MOTION
`TO RECALL THE MANDATE TO AVOID A
`MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE................................................30
`A. Petitioner's Case is Not an Ordinary Case Where
`He Meets Both Standards—Fraud on the Court
`and a Miscarriage of Justice—Demonstrating
`Actual Innocence..........................................................30
`EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES REQUIRE THE
`EXERCISE OF THIS COURTS SUPERVISORY
`JURISDICTION—WHERE THE USE OF A
`SIX-YEAR-OLD ORDER TO INSULATE REVIEW
`OF FRAUD UPON THE COURT OF APPEALS—
`CORRUPTS THE INTEGRITY OF THE JUDICIAL
`PROCESS AND OPERATES TO DEPRIVE THE
`COURT OF ITS CERTIORARI JURISDICTION......................31
`A. The Action of a Single Circuit Judge to Insulate
`Review of Fraud on the Court—Which Impacted
`the§ 2254 Proceedings and Independently
`Undermined the Integrity of a Published
`Decision of the Ninth Circuit—is Unprecedented
`and Legally Indefensible......................................................32
`
`C. The Habeas Prosecutors Knowingly Produced
`Fraudulent Official Reports in Discovery During
`the § 2254 Proceedings, While Withholding Brady
`Evidence Central to the Case, Thereby Committing
`a Fraud Upon the Habeas Court.....................................32
`
`V
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(Continued)
`
`Page
`
`The Habeas Prosecutors Misrepresented Evidence
`to Wrongfully Claim that Petitioner's Case Was
`"Materially" Distinguishable from Chambers v
`Mississippi, While Withholding Evidence They
`Argued Did Not Exist, Thereby Committing
`Fraud on the Ninth Circuit..............................................34
`
`During the Appeal, While Arguing No Evidence
`Linked Burkhart to the Case, Habeas Prosecutors
`[Secretly] "Debriefed" Burkhart on the Murder,
`Thereby Committing a Fraud Upon the Court
`ofAppeals......................................................................35
`A REASONABLE MAN WOULD FIND THE APPEARANCE
`OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST, BIAS AND PREJUDICE SO
`THAT THE HON. JUDGE GRABER'S IMPARTIALITY
`MIGHT REASONABLY BE QUESTIONED..............................36
`
`A. This Court's Precedents Required the Court of
`Appeals to Decide the Merits of a Motion for
`Disqualification of a Circuit Court Judge
`Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §455(a)...........................................36
`THE FAILURE OF THE COURT OF APPEALS TO HEED
`THE DOCTRINE OF CONSTITUTIONAL AVOIDANCE
`RAISES "GRAVE AND DOUBTFUL QUESTIONS"
`CONCERNING SUSPENSION OF THE GREAT WRIT
`AND DUE PROCESS............................................................37
`
`V.
`
`THE SUPREME COURT HAS THE DUTY AND
`INHERENT AUTHORITY TO ADDRESS FRAUD
`DIRECTED AT THE COURTS DECISION-MAKING
`PROCESS DURING THE 2010 CERTIORARI
`PROCEEDING....................................................................38
`
`A.
`
`In Opposing a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari,
`Habeas Prosecutors Displayed a Reckless Disregard
`for the Truth by Making Material Misrepresentations
`as to "Facts" They Knew were Contradicted by
`Evidence They Possessed but Concealed..........................38
`
`Vi
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(Continued)
`
`Page
`
`CONCLUSION..................................................................................40
`PROOF OF SERVICE ........................................................................
`41
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Aoude v. Mobil Oil Corp.,
`892 F.2d 1115, 1118 (1st Cir. 1989).......................................................18
`
`Be ggerly,
`524 U.S. at 47 ...................................................................................
`
`17
`
`Berger v. United States,
`295 U.S. 78, 88 (1935)........................................................................34,35
`
`Brady v. Maryland,
`373 U.S. 83 (1963) ............................................................................. 5,9-33
`
`Bronston,
`409 U.S. at 358 n.4............................................................................28
`
`Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co.,
`129 S. Ct. 2252, 2259 (2009)................................................................37
`
`Christian v. Frank,
`595 F. 3d 1076 (9th Cir. 2010)
`
`Christian v. Frank,
`365 F. App. 'x 877 (9th Cir. 2010)..........................................................7
`
`Chambers v. Mississippi,
`410 U.S. 284 (1973).....................................................................1 2,4,6,9,23,38
`
`Calderon v. Thompson,
`523 U.S. 538(1998)............................................................................................20,30
`
`Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C,
`542 U.S. 367, 380 (2004)......................................................................21
`
`Cervantes v. United States,
`330 F.3d 1186, 1187, 1189 (9th Cir. 2003)..............................................34
`
`VII
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`Cristin v. Brennan,
`281 F.3d 404, 412 (3d Cir. 2002)..............................................................31
`
`Communist Party v. Subversive Activities Control Board,
`351 U.S. 115, 124, 76 S.Ct. 663, 668........................................................32
`
`Dixon, 316 F.3d 1046 (9th Cir. 2003)........................................................29
`
`Demianiuk v. Petrovsky,
`10 F.3d 338, 354 (6th Cir. 1993)...............................................................34,35
`
`England v. Doyle,
`281 F.2d 309 (9th Cir. 1960)....................................................................29
`
`Ex parte United States,
`287 U.S. at 245-46.................................................................................22
`
`Foster v. California,
`394 U.S. 440 (1969).................................................................................5
`
`First Commodity Corp. v. Commodity Futures Trading Comm.,
`676 F.2d 1, 6-7 (1st Cir. 1982)...................................................................29
`
`Gonzalez v. Crosby,
`545 U.S.524 (2005).................................................................................7,8
`
`Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff,
`463 U.S. 1323,1324 (1983)........................................................................24
`
`Hazel-Atlas Glass CO. v. Hartford-Empire Co.,
`322 U.S. 238, 249-250 (1944)...............................................................20,24,25
`
`Hollingsworth v. Perry,
`558 U.S. 183, 196-97 (2010).....................................................................21
`
`Hubbard, 378 F.3d at 338........................................................................31
`
`Kenner v. C.I.R.,
`387 F.3d 689 (1968).................................................................................28
`
`VIII
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`Korematsu v. United States,
`323 U.S. 214 (1944).................................................................................39
`
`Kline v. First Western Gov't Sec.,
`24F.3d480, 491(3dCir. 1994)..................................................................28
`
`Levine v. United States,
`362 U.S. 610, 80 S.Ct. 1038 (1960)..........................................................37
`
`Liteky v. U.S.,
`114 S.Ct. 1147, 1162 (1994)....................................................................37
`
`Lonchar v. Thomas,
`517U.S.at 324.....................................................................................38
`
`Marshall v. Holmes,
`141 U. S. 589.......................................................................................25
`
`Marine Ins. Co. of Alexandria v. Hodgson,
`11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 332, 336 (1813)..........................................................24
`
`Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for S.D. of Iowa,
`490 U.S. 296, 309 (1989)........................................................................21
`
`Marbury v. Madison,
`5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)..................................................................21
`
`McLean v. Alexander,
`599 F.2d 1190, 1197 & n. 12 (3d Cir. 1979)...............................................29
`
`Mesarosh, 352 U.S. at 14 (1956).............................................................32
`
`Miller v. Pate,
`386 U.S. 1 (1967) ..................................................................................
`
`5
`
`Morris v. Ylst,
`447 F.3d 735, 744 (9th Cir. 2006)............................................................33
`
`N. Mariana Islands v. Bowie,
`243 F.3d 1109, 1118 (9th Cir. 2001).........................................................33
`
`ix
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`Pickford v. Talbott,
`225U. S. 651, 657.................................................................................25
`
`Phillips v. Woodford,
`267 f.3d 966, 974 (9th Cir. 2001)...............................................................5
`
`Root Refining Co. v. Universal Oil Prods. Co.,
`169 F.2d 514 (3rd Cir. 1948)....................................................................24
`
`Roche v. Evaporated Milk Ass'n, 319 U.S. 21, 25
`(1943)..................................................................................................22
`
`Rock v. Arkansas,
`483 U.S. 44 (1987) ................................................................................. 4,9
`
`SEC v. Coffey,
`493 F.2d 1304, 1314 (6th Cir. 1974).................................................................28
`
`SEC v. Infinity Group Co.,
`212 F.3d 180, 191-92 (3d Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 905 (2001)............28
`
`Schlup v. Delo,
`513 U.S. 298 (1995)................................................................................9,31
`
`Standard Oil of Cal. v. United States,
`429 U.S. 17 (1976)..................................................................................24
`
`State v. Christian,
`967 P.2d 239 (1998).................................................................................2, 4
`
`Strickland v. Washington,
`466 U.S. 668 (1984).................................................................................4,9
`
`United States v. Shaffer Eciuipment Company,
`11 F.3d 450 (4th Cir. 1993).......................................................................29
`
`United States v. Throckmorton,
`98 U.S. 61 (1878)....................................................................................25
`
`United States v. Payner,
`447 U.S. 727, 100 S.Ct. 2439, 65 L.Ed.2d 468 (1980)....................................32
`
`x
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 2526 (1985)........................................34
`
`Knickerbocker Ins. Co. of Chicago v. Comstock,
`83 U.S. (16 Wall) 258, 270 (1872).............................................................22
`
`Will v. Calvert Fire Insurance Co.,
`437 U.S. 655, 661 (1978)..........................................................................22
`
`RULES
`
`Fed. R. Civil P., Rule 60(b)(d)(3) ............................................................... 7-30
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(i) .....................................................................
`
`15
`
`Fed. R. Civil P., Rule 52..........................................................................18
`
`STATUTES
`
`28 U.S.C. §455(a) and §455(b)(1) . .............................................................
`
`18
`
`CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS:
`
`U.S. Const. art. I, sec. 9 .......................................................................................passim
`U.S. Const. art. III, sec. 2 ....................................................................................passim
`U.S. Const. amend V .....................................................................................passim
`U.S. Const. amend XIV.........................................................................................passim
`
`xi
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS
`
`Petitioner, Taryn Christian, pro Se, respectfully petitions this Honorable
`
`Court, for a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent—the United States Court of
`
`Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, to render a decision on Petitioner's Motion to Recall
`
`the Mandate in Christian v. Frank, 595 F. 3d 1076 (9th Cir. 2010), on the grounds of
`
`after-discovered fraud on the court—which undermined the integrity of the federal
`
`proceedings, and corrupted the Ninth Circuit's application of the Supreme Court's
`
`holding in Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 (1973), to that, which the Panel
`
`believed, were the distinguishing material "facts" of the case.
`
`In accordance with Supreme Court Rule 20.3(a), Petitioner states the relief
`
`sought is not available in any other court because only this Court has jurisdiction to
`
`issue a writ of mandamus directed to a United States Court of Appeals.
`
`JUDICIAL ORDER BELOW
`
`The September 15, 2011 Order—which the Circuit Court Judge, the
`
`Honorable Susan P. Graber, directed be re-entered into the docket on June 1, 2017,
`
`directly following the May 31, 2017 filing of Petitioner's Motion to Recall the
`
`Mandate in Christian v. Frank 595 F. 3d 1076 (9th Cir. 2010), Due to Fraud on the
`
`Court—is attached as Appendix 20.
`
`Where the lower court has failed to issue a decision upon which Petitioner
`
`could seek certiorari review, Petitioner has attached a Declaration of attorney, Gary
`
`A. Modafferi, with Attachment 'A'—'Excerpt of the Court's Docket' showing amended
`
`entries made in the court's docket on November 14, 2017, as Appendix 25.'
`
`1
`
`

`

`OPINIONS BELOW
`
`The Ninth Circuit's 2010 published decision reversing the district court's
`
`granting of habeas relief on the grounds that Petitioner was deprived of his
`
`constitutional right to present a defense in violation of Chambers v. Mississippi, 410
`
`U.S. 284 (1973), is reported at Christian v. Frank, 595 F.3d 1076 (9th Cir. 2010),
`
`and is attached as Appendix 1. The Hawaii Supreme Court's decision affirming
`
`Petitioner's conviction is reported at State v. Christian, 967 P.2d 239 (1998).
`
`JURISDICTION
`
`The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a).
`
`Title 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) describes the jurisdiction of this Court to issue
`
`extraordinary writs as necessary or appropriate to aid its appellate jurisdiction.
`
`CONSTITUTIONAL, STATUTORY,
`AND OTHER PROVISIONS INVOLVED
`
`Title 28 U.S.C. 1651(a) provides:
`
`Writs
`
`(a) The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may
`
`issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions
`and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.
`Title 28 U.S.C. §1254 provides:
`
`Courts of appeals; certiorari; certified questions
`
`Cases in the courts of appeals may be reviewed by the Supreme Court by the
`following methods:
`
`1 Petitioner has been represented by attorney, Gary A. Modafferi Esquire., in the district court and in
`the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals since July 14, 2014. As Mr. Modafferi is not a member of the bar
`of the United States Supreme Court, Petitioner presently stands in pro se before the Court.
`
`2
`
`

`

`By writ of certiorari granted upon the petition of any party to any civil or
`criminal case, before or after rendition of judgment or decree;
`By certification at any time by a court of appeals of any question of law in
`any civil or criminal case as to which instructions are desired, and upon
`such certification the Supreme Court may give binding instructions or
`require the entire record to be sent up for decision of the entire matter in
`controversy.
`
`Article V, United States Constitution in pertinent part provides:
`
`No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process
`of law.
`
`Article XIV, Section 1, United States Constitution in pertinent part provides:
`
`No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or
`immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any
`person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any
`person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
`
`Title 28, U.S.C., Section 455(a) states:
`
`Any justice, judge, or magistrate of the United States shall disqualify himself
`in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
`
`Title 28, U.S.C., Section 455(b)(1) in pertinent part states:
`
`Subsection 455(b)(1) requires a judge to disqualify himself "[wibere he has a
`personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of
`disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding."
`
`This case involves U.S. Const. art. I sec. 9 (Suspension Clause); Federal Rule
`of Civil Procedure 60(b); the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of
`1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214 (Apr. 24, 1996):
`
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE
`
`Taryn Christian is a Hawaii state prisoner serving life sentence for murder
`
`in the second degree. At his trial in 1997, the trial court excluded the testimony of
`
`three witnesses that would have testified that a third party, James Burkhart, had
`
`confessed to the murder for which Petitioner was tried. The trial court adopted the
`
`

`

`State's argument that the witnesses were "unreliable" and "not trustworthy"
`
`because "no evidence" existed to corroborate Burkhart's confessions. Outside the
`
`presence of the jury, while prosecutors proffered Burkhart an alibi of two witnesses,
`
`they also argued that he was entitled to assert his Fifth Amendment privilege to
`
`remain silent. When Petitioner requested to testify prior to the commencement of
`
`closing argument, the trial judge agreed with prosecutors that it was "too late" to
`
`reopen the case. Petitioner appealed, raising constitutional claims pursuant to
`
`Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 (1973) (Third Party Confession); Rock v.
`
`Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44 (1987) (Right to Testify); and Strickland v. Washington, 466
`
`U.S. 668 (1984) (Ineffective Assistance of Counsel). The Hawaii Supreme Court
`
`affirmed, State v. Christian, 967 P.2d 239 (1998). Petitioner's post-judgment appeal
`
`was denied, and the state supreme court affirmed.
`
`I. Petitioner's Habeas Corpus Proceedings in the District Court.
`
`On December 22, 2004, Petitioner filed a timely petition for writ of habeas
`
`corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his 1997 conviction. In opposition
`
`to ordered discovery by Magistrate Judge, Kobayashi, in May of 2006, Habeas
`
`Prosecutors, Peter Hanano, and Richard Minatoya, argued, in part: (Dkt. #32: p.11).
`
`"Here, Petitioner's entire actual innocence claim is premised upon James
`Burkhart being the killer... However, Petitioner cannot point to any physical
`evidence remotely establishing that Burkhart was present at the crime scene
`on the morning of the murder."
`
`On July 19, 2008, Petitioner's habeas counsel, Mark Barrett, presented
`
`argument in his Brief Regarding Evidentiary Issues that as the case progressed
`
`additional new evidence pointing toward Burkhart continued to emerge, indicating
`
`4
`
`

`

`the State's withholding of evidence of "prior identifications" by witnesses, Phillip
`
`Schmidt and Annie Leong. Counsel wrote: (Dkt. #122 at p.2-6)(emphasis supplied).
`
`"...Presented contemporaneously with this brief is evidence that one of
`the eyewitnesses, Phillip Schmidt, believes James Hina Burkhart to be
`the person who he saw running from the scene of the stabbing. In Exhibit
`B to the affidavits and exhibits filed on July 18, 2008, Schmidt states his
`belief that the person who had fled was in fact Burkhart. New evidence
`regarding former Gas Express employee Annie Leong, especially when
`coupled with prior evidence regarding Schmidt, indicates that withholding
`of exculpatory evidence of prior identifications prejudiced Christian. Exhibit
`E to the July 18, 2008 affidavits and Exhibits indicates that Annie Leong
`identified a photograph of a person she saw come into the Gas Express with
`an injured hand. Since Leong would have been interviewed a time prior to
`Christian becoming a suspect, that person undoubtedly was not Christian
`and that information would have been exculpatory. Since neither the fact of
`these identifications of another person nor the identity or identities of the
`persons in the photographs was revealed to the defense, exculpatory evidence
`was unlawfully withheld to the prejudice of Christian...
`
`• . . The evidence that Leong and Schmidt had previously identified a different
`person should have been revealed under the principles of Brady v. Maryland,
`373 U.S. 83 (1963). Again, there appears to be no remedy still available for
`this issue in state court. Phillips v. Woodford, 267 f.3d 966, 974 (9th Cir.
`2001)... The material in Schmidt's present affidavit (Exhibit B to July 18
`affidavits and exhibits) and prior material regarding Schmidt by itself
`indicates both improper identification procedures and improper use of
`misleading techniques. See Miller v. Pate, 386 U.S. 1 (1967)(misleading
`evidence); Foster v. California, 394 U.S. 440 (1969) (unfair identification
`procedures prohibited)."
`
`In July of 2008, prosecutors denied any Brady violations. (Dkt.#125:1516).
`
`In this second new claim, Petitioner argues that "evidence that Leong and
`Schmidt had previously identified a different person" constituted a violation
`of the principles under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)... Petitioner
`has not demonstrated actual prejudice as a result of this alleged withholding
`of exculpatory evidence... Petitioner has also failed to prove that this evidence
`existed prior to trial and that Respondents failed to disclose it to Petitioner..."
`
`At the August 18, 2008 evidentiary hearing, Habeas Prosecutors' argued to
`
`the Magistrate Judge that the State's key prosecution witness, Phillip Schmidt's
`
`5
`
`

`

`2008 identification of Burkhart from a photo-graphic lineup, was nothing more than
`
`a "recantation" of his trial identification of Petitioner. Regarding Annie Leong,
`
`prosecutors introduced testimony from Leong that Petitioner's attorney, Richard
`
`Icenogle, and investigator were also present when she was interviewed by police
`
`and identified the "suspect" that entered the Gas Express store on the morning of
`
`the murder. The Magistrate Judge did not address the Brady claims in her F&R. On
`
`September 30, 2008, the District Court entered judgment granting the petition as to
`
`ground one pursuant to Chambers and denying it as to all other grounds. The
`
`district court ordered Petitioner released. Both the State and Petitioner appealed.
`
`II. Appellate Proceedings in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
`
`On October 14, 2008, prosecutors, in their Urgent Motion to Stay District
`
`Court's Order Releasing Petitioner, argued: (Dkt. #2-1:10-11) (emphasis supplied).
`
`"...First, Chambers is highly distinguishable from the instant case... the
`excluded hearsay confessions in this case did not bear sufficient indicia
`of reliability. Indeed, all of the corroborating circumstances proffered by
`trial counsel constituted mere argument, and were remote, speculative, and
`lacked connection with Cabaccang's murder. Moreover, there was no evidence
`that anyone observed Burkhart stab Cabaccang, or any evidence that anyone
`observed Burkhart at or near the crime scene on the night of the murder..."
`
`On November 24, 2008, they argued (Dkt. #12-1:p.29-30)(empbasis supplied).
`
`"... Indeed, the only eyewitness to date, who was recently willing to provide
`any type of sworn statement that Burkhart was even at the crime scene, is
`Phillip Schmidt. At the trial in 1997, Schmidt identified Petitioner as the
`person Schmidt saw walking away from the crime scene. Now, over ten
`years later, Schmidt mysteriously changed his story and has now identified
`James Burkhart as the person he saw walking away from the scene...
`- . . Thus, other than Petitioner's unsubstantiated argument that Burkhart
`was somehow connected to the murder, there is no credible evidence which
`even places Burkhart at the murder scene..."
`
`

`

`On March 10, 2009, Habeas Prosecutors argued in their Principal Brief to the
`
`Court of Appeals, in part: (Dkt.# 25: p.36) (emphasis supplied).
`
`"... There was no corroborating evidence-Christian was identified by two
`eyewitnesses; . . . the potential rebuttal witnesses placing Mr. Burkhart at
`another location..."
`
`On October15, 2009, Prosecutors argued to the Panel at oral argument:
`
`In this case, the eyewitnesses identified the Petitioner, not anybody else.
`There's nothing to tie this third party, Mr. Burkhart to the location...
`There's no corroboration, and that's the main point."
`
`On February 19, 2010, the Court of Appeals reversed the district court's
`
`judgment, finding that the "facts" determined the case was distinguishable from
`
`Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 (1973). Christian v. Frank, 595 F.3d. 1076
`
`(9th Cir. 2010). See Appendix 1. The Panel denied a certificate of appealability on
`
`Petitioners remaining claims. Christian v. Frank, 365 F. App. 'x 877 (9th Cir. 2010).
`
`On November 1, 2010, the Supreme Court denied certiorari review. Christian
`v. Frank, 131 S. Ct. 511 (2010).
`
`III. The District Court Denies Petitioner's Valid Rule 60(b)(3) Motion Raising
`'Fraud on the Court' as an "Application" to File a "Second or Successive"
`§2254 Petition—Contrary to Gonzalez v. Crosby. 545 U.S.524 (2005).
`
`On January 7, 2011, Petitioner pro Se, filed a Motion to Reopen the Original
`
`Habeas Corpus Petition Due to Newly Discovered Evidence of Fraud on the Court,
`
`pursuant to Rule 60(b)(3)/Independent Action. On February 23, 2011, without
`
`addressing the merits of the arguments and disregarding precedent of Gonzalez v.
`
`Crosby. 545 U.S.524 (2005), which distinguished a valid Rule 60(b)(3) motion from
`
`that of a "second or successive" habeas petition, the district court denied the motion
`
`7
`
`

`

`and transferred the case to the Court of Appeals. See Appendix 2.
`
`IV. After the State's Repeated Requests for Extensions to Respond, Petitioner
`Filed a Motion to Hold in Abeyance the Transferred Motion and a Motion
`Recall the Appellate Mandate Due to Evidence of Fraud on the Court.
`
`On June 13, and 14, 2011, the Court of Appeals entered Petitioner's pro se
`
`Motion to Recall the Mandate on the grounds of newly discovered evidence of fraud
`
`on the court under Case No.08-17236, and, Petitioner's Motion to Stay or Hol