Pizzuto v. Valley

── Pizzuto v. Valley ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: June 05, 2026 Category: General FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT GERALD ROSS PIZZUTO, Jr., No. 24-6233 D.C. No. Petitioner - Appellant, 1:22-cv-00452- BLW v. RANDY VALLEY, Warden, Idaho OPINION Maximum Security Institution, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Idaho B. Lynn Winmill, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted April 20, 2026 Seattle, Washington Filed June 5, 2026 Before: Ronald M. Gould, Johnnie B. Rawlinson, and Mark J. Bennett, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge Bennett 2 PIZZUTO V. VALLEY SUMMARY * Habeas Corpus / Death Penalty The panel affirmed the district court’s denial of death row inmate Gerald Ross Pizzuto, Jr.’s habeas corpus petition arising from Idaho administrative proceedings denying him clemency and a subsequent state judicial challenge to those proceedings. The Idaho Commission of Pardons and Parole recommended that Pizzuto’s death sentences be commuted to life without the possibility of parole. The Idaho Governor rejected the recommendation. Challenging the Governor’s action in state court, Pizzuto contended that the Governor had no authority under the Idaho Constitution to overrule the Commission’s recommendation. The Idaho Supreme Court disagreed. It upheld the state statute which gives the Governor the final say in approving or denying recommendations from the Commission in capital cases. Pizzuto filed a petition for rehearing, asserting that the Idaho Supreme Court’s decision amounted to a federal due process violation because the manner in which it denied him relief was unconstitutionally arbitrary. The Idaho Supreme Court denied rehearing. Pizzuto’s federal habeas petition raised the same due process claim. The district court denied the petition, concluding that Pizzuto’s claim is not cognizable in federal habeas and, in any event, that it fails on the merits. * This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.  PIZZUTO V. VALLEY 3 Rejecting the State’s contention that this court lacks jurisdiction because the district court’s grant of the certificate of appealability (COA) was defective, the panel held that its jurisdiction is secure because regardless of whether the district court complied with the threshold requirements under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) and (c)(3), it undeniably issued a COA. And the State has failed to show that exceptional circumstances justify vacatur. The panel held that Pizzuto cannot avoid the presumption that the Idaho Supreme Court’s summary denial of rehearing adjudicated his federal claim on the merits. The presumption that the state court adjudicated a claim on the merits does not require a “judgment” or “final determination,” and the Idaho Supreme Court’s timely resolution of Pizzuto’s request for rehearing cannot be interpreted by a federal court as the state court’s failure to consider and evaluate Pizzuto’s substantive arguments. Thus, deferential review under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 is warranted. Pizzuto contended that the Idaho Supreme Court violated his federal due process right by the manner in which it upheld the Governor’s statutory authority to reject the Commission’s clemency recommendation. Because the Idaho Supreme Court’s order denying rehearing was unaccompanied by an explanation, the panel needed to determine what theories could have supported the state court’s decision, and whether it is possible fairminded jurists