Kyle Whitsides v. Warden

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: September 30, 2025
• Docket: 8:25-cv-00348
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KYLE WHITESIDES, Case No. 8:25-cv-0348-MRA-RAO

12 Petitioner,

13 v. ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF 14 WARDEN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 Respondent. 16

17 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition for Writ of 18 Habeas Corpus, Dkt. No. 1; Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss Petition for Writ of 19 Habeas Corpus, Dkt. No. 13; Petitioner’s Opposition to Respondent’s Motion to 20 Dismiss, Dkt. No. 17; Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate 21 Judge issued on July 8, 2025 (“Report”), Dkt. No. 19; Petitioner’s Objections to the 22 Report, Dkt. No. 22; and all of the records and files herein. 23 The Report recommends denial of the Petition as untimely. (Dkt. No. 19.) The 24 Court has conducted a de novo review of those portions of the Report to which 25 Petitioner has objected and is not persuaded by the Objections. Petitioner’s 26 objections (Dkt. No. 22) do not merit any change to the Report’s findings or 27 recommendations. 28 1 Petitioner objects that the untimeliness of his Petition should be excused 2 because new evidence demonstrates his actual innocence. (Dkt. No. 32 at 1-5.) A 3 gateway claim of actual innocence must be based on “new reliable evidence— 4 whether it be exculpatory scientific evidence, trustworthy eyewitness accounts, or 5 critical physical evidence—that was not presented at trial.” Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 6 298, 324 (1995). The prisoner then must show that, in light of the new evidence, “no 7 reasonable juror would have found [him] guilty.” Id. at 329. Here, Petitioner alleges 8 the existence of new evidence purporting to undermine the accounts of the victim 9 and witnesses. The victim, Kimberly M., allegedly accused other men of rape, had a 10 history of making false reports to the police, had a criminal record, and was 11 disbelieved by her roommate. (Dkt. No. 32 at 1-2.) Other witnesses, Kelly H. and 12 Amy D., allegedly committed perjury. (Id. at 2.) 13 These allegations fail to show this is an “extremely rare” case that qualifies for 14 the exception. See Schlup, 513 U.S. at 321. The alleged evidence, assuming it exists 15 and is new, falls short of the standard. Evidence that would undermine the victim’s 16 credibility, such as her alleged history of falsehoods or criminal history, would be 17 insufficient to show actual innocence. See Calderon v. Thompson, 523 U.S. 538, 563 18 (1998) (impeachment evidence is insufficient to establish actual innocence because 19 it “is a step removed from evidence pertaining to the crime itself”) (citing Sawyer v. 20 Whitley, 505 U.S. 333, 348 (1992)); Gandarela v. Johnson, 286 F.3d 1080, 1086 (9th 21 Cir. 2002) (“[S]peculative and collateral impeachment falls far short of showing 22 actual innocence.”). Evidence of perjury by other witnesses also would be 23 insufficient, because such evidence would not undermine the victim’s central account 24 of the sexual assault. See Sistrunk v. Armenakis, 292 F.3d 669, 675 (9th Cir. 2002) 25 (en banc) (“[E]ven if we were to accept [Petitioner’s] argument that the evidence of 26 falsity and bias thoroughly compromises the bolstering effect of [the witness’s] 27 testimony, it does nothing to discredit the victim’s account of the rape, which was 28 central to establishing guilt.”). 1 Accordingly, the Court hereby accepts and adopts the findings, conclusions, 2 || and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge contained in the Report. 3 IT IS ORDERED that the Petition is denied, and Judgment shall be entered 4 || dismissing this action with prejudice. 5 6 || DATED: September 30, 2025 fees R. Aé fel 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28