Eugene Doerr v. David Shinn

── Eugene Doerr v. David Shinn ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: May 04, 2026 Category: General FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT EUGENE ALLEN DOERR, No. 09-99026 10-99007 Petitioner-Appellant, D.C. No. v. 2:02-cv-00582- PGR DAVID SHINN, Director, ORDER AND Respondent-Appellee. AMENDED OPINION Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Paul G. Rosenblatt, District Judge, Presiding EUGENE ALLEN DOERR, No. 20-99002 Petitioner-Appellee, D.C. No. v. 2:02-cv-00582- DAVID SHINN, Director, of the JJT Arizona Department of Corrections; CHARLES GOLDSMITH, Warden, Arizona State Prison - Eyman Complex, Respondents-Appellants. 2 DOERR V. SHINN Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona John Joseph Tuchi, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted May 23, 2024 San Francisco, California Filed January 29, 2025 Amended May 4, 2026 Before: William A. Fletcher, Danielle J. Forrest, and Holly A. Thomas, Circuit Judges. Order; Opinion by Judge W. Fletcher Dissent by Judge Forrest SUMMARY* Habeas Corpus / Death Penalty In Eugene Allen Doerr’s appeal from the district court’s partial denial of his federal habeas petition challenging his death sentence, the panel filed (1) an order (a) amending and replacing the opinion and dissent filed on January 29, 2025, and (b) denying as moot Respondents’ petition for rehearing en banc; (2) a superseding amended opinion granting Doerr’s motion to remand to the district court with * This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.  DOERR V. SHINN 3 instructions to stay and abey the federal petition under Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005), in order to allow Doerr to present to the state court in a second petition for postconviction relief (PCR) his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) at sentencing; and (3) a superseding dissent. The Supreme Court in Rhines approved a stay and abeyance procedure that allows habeas petitioners to exhaust claims in state court that have not previously been presented there, and to do so without dismissing their federal habeas petitions or running afoul of the one-year statute of limitations established by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. To obtain a stay and abeyance order under Rhines, a federal habeas petitioner must show: (1) there is “good cause for his failure” to present the claim in state court; (2) the claim is “potentially meritorious”; and (3) “there is no indication that the petitioner engaged in intentionally dilatory litigation tactics.” In the superseded opinion, the panel granted Doerr’s motion and remanded the case to the district court with instructions to stay and abey his federal habeas petition. Before the mandate issued, the Arizona Supreme Court decided State v. Traverso, 576 P.3d 97 (Ariz. 2025), which bears on the analysis in this appeal. The panel issued the amended and superseding opinion, taking Traverso into account. In the amended opinion, the panel held that the Rhines criteria are applicable to Doerr’s federal habeas petition with respect to his IAC claims at sentencing. 4 DOERR V. SHINN • Concerning respondent