FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
TENTH CIRCUIT December 3, 2010
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff–Appellee,
v. No. 09-2206
(D.C. No. 1:08-CV-00479-RB-WDS)
ALEJANDRO ESPINOZA, a/k/a Miguel (D. N.M.)
Angel Manzo,
Defendant–Appellant.
ORDER GRANTING PANEL REHEARING
Before KELLY, EBEL, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Alejandro Espinoza a/k/a Miguel Angel Manzo, a federal prisoner
proceeding pro se, seeks rehearing by the panel of its order dated August 20, 2010,
denying a certificate of appealability to appeal the district court’s dismissal of his 28
U.S.C. § 2255 petition. With respect to Espinoza’s claim under Brady v. Maryland, 373
U.S. 83 (1963), advanced in his amended petition for rehearing (“PFR”), we GRANT
rehearing by the panel. Section II.B of the panel’s August 20, 2010, order is VACATED
and replaced with the order issued herewith. We DENY panel rehearing on all other
issues raised in petitioner’s original and amended PFRs.
Espinoza’s PFR has been circulated to the full court and no active judge has called
for a poll or voted for rehearing en banc. Consequently, his suggestion for rehearing en
banc is DENIED.
Entered for the Court
Carlos F. Lucero
Circuit Judge
-2-
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
TENTH CIRCUIT December 3, 2010
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff–Appellee,
v. No. 09-2206
(D.C. No. 1:08-CV-00479-RB-WDS)
ALEJANDRO ESPINOZA, a/k/a Miguel (D. N.M.)
Angel Manzo,
Defendant–Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGEMENT*
Before KELLY, EBEL, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.
Alejandro Espinoza a/k/a Miguel Angel Manzo, a federal prisoner proceeding pro
se, sought a certificate of appealability (“COA”) to appeal the district court’s dismissal of
his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition. In an August 20, 2010, order, we denied his application
for COA. Espinoza subsequently petitioned for panel rehearing with suggestion for
rehearing en banc on a number of grounds. We granted panel rehearing as to his claim
under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) and United States v. Torres, 569 F.3d 1277
(10th Cir. 2009) (holding under similar facts that “merely because other impeachment
*
This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case,
res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value
consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
evidence was presented does not mean that additional impeachment evidence is
cumulative”). In his amended petition for rehearing, Espinoza complains that neither the
magistrate judge, nor the district court ever ruled on his Brady claim. We agree and
accordingly remand this matter to the district court so that it may rule on the Brady claim
in the first instance.
I
In 2004, Espinoza was indicted for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute
methamphetamine. The government’s primary witness against Espinoza was Deborah
James who testified that she bought methamphetamine from Espinoza. James also
interpreted for the jury a coded conversation between herself and Espinoza putatively
detailing the distribution of methamphetamine. James, an admitted methamphetamine
user, stated during both direct and cross-examination that she had not used
methamphetamine since January 2004.
The Brady violation, or more accurately, the violation of Giglio v. United States,
405 U.S. 150 (1972), at issue is the government’s admitted suppression of evidence that
James repeatedly perjured herself. Despite testifying that she had not used drugs since
January 2004, the government held back the fact that James tested positive for
methamphetamine on August 25, 2004. The government disclosed this Brady violation
in its response to Espinoza’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion on August 20, 2008, three years
after Espinoza’s trial. Following the government’s disclosure, Espinoza sought to raise
the Brady issue in his pro se motion to file a reply brief to the government’s response to
his § 2255 petition. The magistrate judge’s Proposed Findings and Recommended
-2-
Disposition made no mention of the Brady issue. In his response to the magistrate
judge’s proposed findings, Espinoza complained of the judge’s failure to address his
Brady claim. The district court’s subsequent adoption of the Proposed Findings and
Recommended Disposition also fails to address the Brady issue.
Espinoza then filed a motion to alter or amend judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 59(e) in which he requested the court to rule upon the omitted issues he raised in his “
§ 2255 brief, Memorandum of facts and law, and the reply.” In the Proposed Findings
and Recommended Disposition of the 59(e) motion, the magistrate judge once again
failed to rule on the Brady issue. In his objections to the magistrate judge’s Proposed
Findings and Recommended Disposition of the 59(e) motion, Espinoza once again raised
the Brady issue and the magistrate judge’s failure to address it. Nonetheless, the district
court once again adopted the magistrate judge’s Proposed Findings and Recommended
Disposition without mentioning the Brady claim.
II
We have observed that a “failure to make any ruling on a claim that was properly
presented in a habeas petition” represents a “defect in the integrity of federal habeas
proceedings.” Peach v. United States, 468 F.3d 1269, 1271 (10th Cir. 2006) (quotation
and alteration omitted). Because the district court never ruled on Espinoza’s Brady
claim, we: (1) VACATED our prior order denying COA with respect to the Brady issue
in the accompanying order granting panel rehearing and now; (2) GRANT a COA on the
Brady claim and; (3) REMAND the matter to the district court with instructions to rule
-3-
on the Brady claim in the first instance.
Entered for the Court
Carlos F. Lucero
Circuit Judge
-4-