3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA
5 CHRISTOPHER JOHN DIAZ-CASTRO, Case No. 2:23-cv-01508-ART-BNW
6 Petitioner, ORDER v. 7 BRIAN WILLIAMS, et al., 8 Respondents. 9 10 Petitioner Christopher John Diaz-Castro commenced this habeas action by 11 filing a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 7). This habeas matter is 12 before the Court for consideration of Diaz-Castro’s motion for discovery (ECF No. 13 33). Respondents filed their response (ECF No. 34) and Diaz-Castro replied (ECF 14 No. 35). Also before the Court are Respondents’ motion to seal (ECF No. 43) and 15 motions to extend time (ECF No. 38, 39). 16 I. BACKGROUND 17 Diaz-Castro challenges a conviction and sentence imposed by the Eighth 18 Judicial District Court for Clark County. The state court entered a judgment of 19 conviction pursuant to a guilty plea for one count of attempt sexual assault with 20 a minor under sixteen years of age, one count of attempt lewdness with a child 21 under the age of fourteen, and one count of preventing dissuading witness from 22 testifying or producing evidence. The state court sentenced Diaz-Castro to an 23 aggregate term of 10 to 30 years. Diaz-Castro did not file a direct appeal. 24 In September 2020, Diaz-Castro filed a state petition for writ of habeas 25 corpus. The state court denied post-conviction relief and the Nevada Court of 26 Appeals affirmed the denial of relief in May 2023, and a remittitur issued the 27 following month. In September 2023, Diaz-Castro initiated this federal habeas 28 corpus proceeding pro se. (ECF No. 1.) He attached an affidavit to his pro se 1 petition from the mother of the victim, H.A., that H.A admitted to her mother that 2 she lied “on her statement when Diaz-Castro was arrested.” (ECF No. 3 at 99.) 3 H.A.’s mother, Loredena Gonzalez (“Loredena”), was also the girlfriend of Diaz- 4 Castro. (ECF No. 32 at 2.) 5 Following the appointment of counsel in May 2024, Diaz-Castro received 6 prior case discovery from post-conviction counsel, Jeannie Hua (“Hua”). The 7 discovery, however, did not include a handwritten statement from H.A. from 8 November 2017 that was referenced in a formal police interview conducted on 9 December 10, 2017. H.A. made the handwritten statement while at the Children’s 10 Assessment Center. Diaz-Castro asserts that the case discovery does not include 11 H.A.’s handwritten statement or the contents of any verbal statements H.A. made 12 during her time at the Children’s Assessment Center. 13 II. GOVERNING LAW 14 Discovery in habeas matters is governed by Rule 6(a) of the Rules 15 Governing Section 2254 Cases, which provides: “A judge may, for good cause, 16 authorize a party to conduct discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 17 and may limit the extent of discovery.” To determine whether a petitioner has 18 established “good cause” for discovery, the Court identifies the essential elements 19 of the substantive claim and analyzes whether “specific allegations before the 20 court show reason to believe that the petitioner may, if the facts are fully 21 developed, be able to demonstrate” entitlement to relief. Bracy v. Gramley, 520 22 U.S. 899, 908–09 (1997); Roseberry v. Ryan, 289 F. Supp. 3d 1029, 1034 (D. Ariz. 23 2018). Thus, the purpose of discovery in a habeas proceeding is not to develop 24 new claims, but, rather, to develop factual support for specific allegations in 25 existing claims. See Rich v. Calderon, 187 F.3d 1064, 1067 (9th Cir. 1990) 26 (“Habeas is an important safeguard whose goal is to correct real and obvious 27 wrongs. It was never meant to be a fishing expedition for habeas petitioners to 28 ‘explore their case in search of its existence.””). 1 III. DISCUSSION 2 Diaz-Castro requests leave to conduct discovery based on the omission of 3 certain records from prior counsel’s file and in support of his investigation into 4 equitable tolling. He requests (1) an order directing the Attorney General’s office 5 to provide him his legal mail and legal call logs from High Desert State Prison 6 between Hua and Diaz-Castro from May 5, 2023, through September 12, 2023, 7 and (2) permission to subpoena the Clark County District Attorney’s (“CCDA”) 8 office and/or Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (“LVMPD”) for all 9 statements made by H.A. during the course of the investigation, including any 10 handwritten statements made by H.A. about the allegations in November 2017. 11 Diaz-Castro argues that his request for the legal mail and call logs are 12 relevant to his request for equitable tolling because such discovery may show that 13 he did not receive his case file from his post-conviction attorney until after the 14 AEDPA statute of limitations expired despite his request for the file. In addition, 15 he asserts that given the new evidence that H.A. has admitted to lying to the 16 police to her mother, all of her statements about the incident are relevant to Diaz- 17 Castro’s claim that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance for failure to 18 investigate his innocence as well as H.A.’s credibility by speaking with H.A.’s 19 mother. 20 Regarding Diaz-Castro’s request for his mail and call logs, Respondent 21 asserts that the Nevada Department of Corrections (“NDOC”) is the party to 22 maintain legal mail and call logs. As such, they contend that Diaz-Castro’s 23 request should be obtained by subpoena to NDOC, rather than the Nevada 24 Attorney General. The Court finds that Diaz-Castro has shown good cause for 25 limited discovery. The Court will authorize issuance of a subpoena to NDOC for 26 attorney call and mail logs from the period of May 1, 2023, to September 13, 27 2023. 28 1 Respondents argue that Diaz-Castro’s request for H.A.’s statements should 2 be denied, because under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e), any evidence obtained would not 3 be admissible to support his claims as Diaz-Castro failed to develop the state 4 court record. Diaz-Castro argues that he is requesting H.A.’s recorded statements 5 because they were part of discovery in the original case, but not in prior counsel’s 6 files, and because H.A.’s statements are relevant to evaluating whether Diaz- 7 Castro has satisfied the relevant standard for innocence to excuse the 8 untimeliness of his federal petition. 9 The Court grants Diaz-Castro’s request for H.A.’s statements to permit 10 Diaz-Castro to obtain a complete discovery file of his case. The Court authorizes 11 issuance of a subpoena to CCDA for recorded statements made by H.A. during 12 the course of the investigation, including any handwritten statements made by 13 H.A. about the allegations against Diaz-Castro in November 2017. 14 The Court at this time does not determine whether any material obtained 15 by Diaz-Castro in response to the subpoena will ultimately be admissible under 16 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e) to support his claims. Further, the Court does not make any 17 comment about the procedural viability or merit of any of his claims. These issues 18 will be addressed in due course. 19 IV. MOTION TO SEAL 20 Respondents seek leave to file under seal (ECF No. 43): Exhibit 24, 21 Petitioner’s Presentence Investigation Report (“PSI”) (ECF No. 44-1), dated 22 September 4, 2019. Under Nevada law, the PSI is “confidential and must not be 23 made a part of any public record.” Nev. Rev. Stat. § 176.156(5).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA
5 CHRISTOPHER JOHN DIAZ-CASTRO, Case No. 2:23-cv-01508-ART-BNW
6 Petitioner, ORDER v. 7 BRIAN WILLIAMS, et al., 8 Respondents. 9 10 Petitioner Christopher John Diaz-Castro commenced this habeas action by 11 filing a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 7). This habeas matter is 12 before the Court for consideration of Diaz-Castro’s motion for discovery (ECF No. 13 33). Respondents filed their response (ECF No. 34) and Diaz-Castro replied (ECF 14 No. 35). Also before the Court are Respondents’ motion to seal (ECF No. 43) and 15 motions to extend time (ECF No. 38, 39). 16 I. BACKGROUND 17 Diaz-Castro challenges a conviction and sentence imposed by the Eighth 18 Judicial District Court for Clark County. The state court entered a judgment of 19 conviction pursuant to a guilty plea for one count of attempt sexual assault with 20 a minor under sixteen years of age, one count of attempt lewdness with a child 21 under the age of fourteen, and one count of preventing dissuading witness from 22 testifying or producing evidence. The state court sentenced Diaz-Castro to an 23 aggregate term of 10 to 30 years. Diaz-Castro did not file a direct appeal. 24 In September 2020, Diaz-Castro filed a state petition for writ of habeas 25 corpus. The state court denied post-conviction relief and the Nevada Court of 26 Appeals affirmed the denial of relief in May 2023, and a remittitur issued the 27 following month. In September 2023, Diaz-Castro initiated this federal habeas 28 corpus proceeding pro se. (ECF No. 1.) He attached an affidavit to his pro se 1 petition from the mother of the victim, H.A., that H.A admitted to her mother that 2 she lied “on her statement when Diaz-Castro was arrested.” (ECF No. 3 at 99.) 3 H.A.’s mother, Loredena Gonzalez (“Loredena”), was also the girlfriend of Diaz- 4 Castro. (ECF No. 32 at 2.) 5 Following the appointment of counsel in May 2024, Diaz-Castro received 6 prior case discovery from post-conviction counsel, Jeannie Hua (“Hua”). The 7 discovery, however, did not include a handwritten statement from H.A. from 8 November 2017 that was referenced in a formal police interview conducted on 9 December 10, 2017. H.A. made the handwritten statement while at the Children’s 10 Assessment Center. Diaz-Castro asserts that the case discovery does not include 11 H.A.’s handwritten statement or the contents of any verbal statements H.A. made 12 during her time at the Children’s Assessment Center. 13 II. GOVERNING LAW 14 Discovery in habeas matters is governed by Rule 6(a) of the Rules 15 Governing Section 2254 Cases, which provides: “A judge may, for good cause, 16 authorize a party to conduct discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 17 and may limit the extent of discovery.” To determine whether a petitioner has 18 established “good cause” for discovery, the Court identifies the essential elements 19 of the substantive claim and analyzes whether “specific allegations before the 20 court show reason to believe that the petitioner may, if the facts are fully 21 developed, be able to demonstrate” entitlement to relief. Bracy v. Gramley, 520 22 U.S. 899, 908–09 (1997); Roseberry v. Ryan, 289 F. Supp. 3d 1029, 1034 (D. Ariz. 23 2018). Thus, the purpose of discovery in a habeas proceeding is not to develop 24 new claims, but, rather, to develop factual support for specific allegations in 25 existing claims. See Rich v. Calderon, 187 F.3d 1064, 1067 (9th Cir. 1990) 26 (“Habeas is an important safeguard whose goal is to correct real and obvious 27 wrongs. It was never meant to be a fishing expedition for habeas petitioners to 28 ‘explore their case in search of its existence.””). 1 III. DISCUSSION 2 Diaz-Castro requests leave to conduct discovery based on the omission of 3 certain records from prior counsel’s file and in support of his investigation into 4 equitable tolling. He requests (1) an order directing the Attorney General’s office 5 to provide him his legal mail and legal call logs from High Desert State Prison 6 between Hua and Diaz-Castro from May 5, 2023, through September 12, 2023, 7 and (2) permission to subpoena the Clark County District Attorney’s (“CCDA”) 8 office and/or Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (“LVMPD”) for all 9 statements made by H.A. during the course of the investigation, including any 10 handwritten statements made by H.A. about the allegations in November 2017. 11 Diaz-Castro argues that his request for the legal mail and call logs are 12 relevant to his request for equitable tolling because such discovery may show that 13 he did not receive his case file from his post-conviction attorney until after the 14 AEDPA statute of limitations expired despite his request for the file. In addition, 15 he asserts that given the new evidence that H.A. has admitted to lying to the 16 police to her mother, all of her statements about the incident are relevant to Diaz- 17 Castro’s claim that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance for failure to 18 investigate his innocence as well as H.A.’s credibility by speaking with H.A.’s 19 mother. 20 Regarding Diaz-Castro’s request for his mail and call logs, Respondent 21 asserts that the Nevada Department of Corrections (“NDOC”) is the party to 22 maintain legal mail and call logs. As such, they contend that Diaz-Castro’s 23 request should be obtained by subpoena to NDOC, rather than the Nevada 24 Attorney General. The Court finds that Diaz-Castro has shown good cause for 25 limited discovery. The Court will authorize issuance of a subpoena to NDOC for 26 attorney call and mail logs from the period of May 1, 2023, to September 13, 27 2023. 28 1 Respondents argue that Diaz-Castro’s request for H.A.’s statements should 2 be denied, because under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e), any evidence obtained would not 3 be admissible to support his claims as Diaz-Castro failed to develop the state 4 court record. Diaz-Castro argues that he is requesting H.A.’s recorded statements 5 because they were part of discovery in the original case, but not in prior counsel’s 6 files, and because H.A.’s statements are relevant to evaluating whether Diaz- 7 Castro has satisfied the relevant standard for innocence to excuse the 8 untimeliness of his federal petition. 9 The Court grants Diaz-Castro’s request for H.A.’s statements to permit 10 Diaz-Castro to obtain a complete discovery file of his case. The Court authorizes 11 issuance of a subpoena to CCDA for recorded statements made by H.A. during 12 the course of the investigation, including any handwritten statements made by 13 H.A. about the allegations against Diaz-Castro in November 2017. 14 The Court at this time does not determine whether any material obtained 15 by Diaz-Castro in response to the subpoena will ultimately be admissible under 16 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e) to support his claims. Further, the Court does not make any 17 comment about the procedural viability or merit of any of his claims. These issues 18 will be addressed in due course. 19 IV. MOTION TO SEAL 20 Respondents seek leave to file under seal (ECF No. 43): Exhibit 24, 21 Petitioner’s Presentence Investigation Report (“PSI”) (ECF No. 44-1), dated 22 September 4, 2019. Under Nevada law, the PSI is “confidential and must not be 23 made a part of any public record.” Nev. Rev. Stat. § 176.156(5). Having reviewed 24 and considered the matter in accordance with Kamakana v. City and County of 25 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006), and its progeny, the Court finds that a 26 compelling need to protect Petitioner’s safety, privacy, and/or personal 27 identifying information outweighs the public interest in open access to court 28 1 || records. Accordingly, Respondents’ Motion is granted, and Exhibit 24 is 2 || considered properly filed under seal. 3 V. MOTIONS TO EXTEND 4 Respondents move for an extension of time to file their response to the first 5 || amended petition. (ECF Nos. 38, 39.) The Court finds the requests are made in 6 || good faith and not solely for the purpose of delay, and therefore good cause exists 7 || to grant the motions. 8 VI. CONCLUSION 9 It is therefore ordered that Petitioner Christopher John Diaz-Castro’s 10 || Motion for Discovery (ECF No. 33) is granted. Diaz-Castro is granted leave of court 11 || to serve upon (1) NDOC a subpoena to obtain attorney call and mail logs from the 12 || period of May 1, 2023, to September 13, 2023, and (2) CCDA a subpoena for 13 || recorded statements made by H.A. during the course of the investigation, 14 || including any handwritten statements made by H.A. about the allegations against 15 || Diaz-Castro in November 2017. 16 It is further ordered that Petitioner must serve the subpoenas within 30 17 || days of entry of this order. 18 It is further ordered that Respondents’ Motion to Seal (ECF No. 43) is 19 || granted. Exhibit 24 is considered properly filed under seal. 20 It is further ordered that Respondents’ second and third unopposed 21 || motions for enlargement of time (ECF Nos. 38, 39) are granted nunc pro tunc. 22 DATED THIS 13th day of February, 2026.
25 ANNER.TRAUM UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 26 27 28