The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has declined to intervene in a long-standing case of wrongful arrest and racial discrimination. This case seeks to clear the conviction of a man accused of causing the Pioneer Hotel Fire, a devastating incident that occurred over five decades ago and resulted in 29 fatalities.
The appellate court expressed uncertainty regarding a federal judge’s authority to expunge a state conviction, which is the core request of the plaintiff. However, the three-judge panel determined that this complex legal question should be addressed through a standard appeal process after further proceedings, rather than through an extraordinary writ of mandamus, which would have prematurely halted the lower court’s process.
Louis Taylor initiated legal action against Pima County in 2015, two years after his release from an Arizona state prison where he served 42 years. Taylor alleges that the county wrongfully accused him in connection with the tragic 1970 Pioneer Hotel Fire in Tucson, Arizona. At the time of the incident, Taylor was a 16-year-old Black youth. He was subsequently convicted of 28 counts of murder by an all-white jury in 1972, despite the absence of conclusive forensic evidence confirming arson.
In 2013, Taylor was released after entering a no contest plea , which vacated his initial 1972 conviction. Later, in 2021, Taylor amended his 2015 complaint, seeking to expunge not only the original conviction but also the 2013 plea deal and subsequent conviction. This action is crucial for Taylor to pursue damages for the four decades of imprisonment he endured.
The legal framework established by Heck v Humphrey sets a precedent that generally prevents individuals from seeking damages related to a conviction unless that conviction has been previously overturned.
U.S. District Judge Rosemary Marquez, in a 2021 order denying the county’s request for summary judgment, indicated her willingness to consider expunging the conviction. The county subsequently challenged this position before the Ninth Circuit panel in late March, arguing that such an action would be unconstitutional.
The Ninth Circuit panel, in a 2-1 decision outlined in a Monday morning memorandum, expressed its uncertainty on the matter. The court concluded that Pima County could raise the issue of expungement in a direct appeal to the Ninth Circuit following a trial, should the district court rule in favor of expungement. The trial is scheduled to commence on April 22 and is anticipated to last up to two months.
Pima County had petitioned the Ninth Circuit to preemptively prevent Judge Marquez from expunging the conviction. However, the panel rejected this request, stating that a writ of mandamus is an “extraordinary remedy” reserved for exceptional circumstances, which they deemed not applicable in this case.
While Shipp v Todd, a 1978 case, established the authority of a federal judge to expunge criminal records like arrests and indictments, the panel noted that the specific question of a federal judge expunging a state criminal conviction remains legally ambiguous and has not been definitively addressed by the courts.
In the majority opinion, U.S. Circuit Judges Jacqueline Nguyen and Richard Paez emphasized the conditional nature of any potential expungement. “This is an unusual case, and the jury would have to find that the county engaged in misconduct before the district court would consider granting expungement,” they wrote. They further reasoned that the factual basis of the case remains highly disputed, and any ruling by the district court, including jury findings and declaratory relief, can be properly reviewed through a direct appeal process.
The panel further elaborated that two critical factors in determining the appropriateness of mandamus relief – the availability of alternative remedies and the correctability of harm through appeal – weighed in favor of Taylor, not the county.
Pima County had argued in March that proceeding to trial on what they termed a “lawless remedy” would create complications, potentially requiring their lead attorney to be called as a witness. They also raised concerns about the age of the case, suggesting that further delays due to appeals could result in the unavailability of more witnesses in any subsequent retrial.
Additionally, the county’s legal team argued that if the 2013 plea and conviction were expunged, the original 1972 conviction might be reinstated. This could lead to the paradoxical situation where Taylor, although potentially entitled to substantial damages, might legally be required to return to prison.
The Ninth Circuit panel dismissed these arguments as “speculative assertions.” They found that the concerns regarding attorney testimony and witness availability were not guaranteed outcomes, and the issue of potential reinstatement of the 1972 conviction could be addressed in a future appeal.
Finally, the panel concluded that because the petition did not present an “oft-repeated error,” the “drastic remedy” of mandamus relief was not justified.
“As stated, whether Shipp permits a district court to expunge a conviction in extreme and unusual cases has not been decided, and we agree with the county that the case presents an important and novel issue,” the majority opinion concluded.
U.S. Circuit Judge Patrick Bumatay dissented from the majority, advocating in a separate opinion for granting mandamus relief to Pima County.
“For the first time, a district court claims for itself the authority to expunge a state criminal conviction,” Judge Bumatay wrote. “This is clearly erroneous.”
Judge Bumatay argued that while various factors must be considered when deciding on mandamus relief, the most critical factor is whether the district court’s action was clearly erroneous, which he believed to be the case.
“It makes little sense to allow this complex case to continue through trial only to be reversed on appeal,” he stated, arguing for preemptive intervention.
Neither party involved in the case provided comments following the Ninth Circuit’s decision.
