6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 7 AT TACOMA
8 SAMUEL VALDEZ,
9 Petitioner, Case No. C21-5322-DGE-SKV
10 v. ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S 11 RONALD HAYNES, PENDING MOTIONS
12 Respondent.
14 I. INTRODUCTION 15 This is a federal habeas action filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has presented to 16 this Court for consideration a motion seeking discovery (Dkt. 16), a motion for expansion of the 17 record (Dkt. 18), and three motions for an evidentiary hearing (Dkts. 15, 22, 23). Respondent 18 filed a response opposing Petitioner’s first motion for an evidentiary hearing, as well as his 19 motions for discovery and for expansion of the record.1 Dkt. 19. Petitioner filed a traverse in 20 support of his motions. Dkt. 21. The Court, having reviewed each of Petitioner’s motions, and 21
22 1 Petitioner’s remaining motions for an evidentiary hearing do not require a response and, thus, the Court will proceed to resolution of all pending motions at this time. 23
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S
PENDING MOTIONS - 1 1 the balance of the record, concludes that Petitioner is not entitled to the relief he seeks by way of 2 any of the pending motions. The Court addresses each of Petitioner’s motions below. 3 II. DISCUSSION 4 A. Motion for Discovery
5 Petitioner seeks to conduct discovery in this matter to obtain evidence he believes will 6 demonstrate that the confidential informant (“CI”) who went to the police and made allegations 7 that resulted in Petitioner’s conviction was not credible. Dkt. 16. Petitioner claims the CI was 8 dishonest in the allegations he made to the police and prosecutor regarding Petitioner’s conduct, 9 and that the police and prosecutor failed to properly investigate the CI’s allegations and/or 10 withheld from the defense evidence demonstrating that the CI was not credible. See id. 11 Rule 6(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides the Court may, for good 12 cause, authorize a party to conduct discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 13 may limit the extent of discovery. The Supreme Court has previously established that “[a]
14 habeas petitioner, unlike the usual civil litigant in federal court, is not entitled to discovery as a 15 matter of ordinary course.” Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899, 904 (1997). Discovery is properly 16 limited in habeas corpus actions because it “is not the trial itself but a collateral attack upon a 17 standing conviction.” Austad v. Risley, 761 F.2d 1348, 1355 n.4 (9th Cir. 1985). Absent a 18 showing of good cause, the Court should deny a motion for leave to conduct discovery. Rich v. 19 Calderon, 187 F.3d 1064, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 1999). To show good cause, the petitioner must set 20 forth specific facts showing discovery is appropriate in the particular case. Deputy v. Taylor, 19 21 F.3d 1485, 1493 (3rd Cir. 1994) (citing Mayberry v. Petsock, 821 F.2d 179, 185 (3rd Cir. 1987)). 22 The Ninth Circuit has made clear that, in the context of habeas litigation, trial courts “should not 23
PENDING MOTIONS - 2 1 allow prisoners to use federal discovery for fishing expeditions to investigate mere speculation.” 2 Calderon v. U.S. Dist. Court N.D. Cal., 98 F.3d 1102, 1106 (9th Cir. 1996). 3 Petitioner fails to show that there is good cause to permit him to conduct discovery in this 4 federal habeas action. Petitioner, by way of his motion for discovery, appears to be seeking new
5 evidence to support his contention that he was denied a fair trial as a result of prosecutorial 6 misconduct. However, in a federal habeas proceeding, the Court’s review is limited to the record 7 before the state courts at the time the state courts adjudicated the claims. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); 8 Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170, 181-82 (2011). In Pinholster, the Supreme Court made clear 9 that “evidence introduced in federal court has no bearing on § 2254(d)(1) review. If a claim has 10 been adjudicated on the merits by a state court, a federal habeas petitioner must overcome the 11 limitation of § 2254(d)(1) on the record that was before that state court.” Id. at 185. Under this 12 limited scope of review, the Court may not consider new evidence not presented to the state 13 courts. It would therefore serve no purpose to allow Petitioner to conduct the requested
14 discovery. 15 B. Motions for Evidentiary Hearing 16 As noted above, Petitioner has filed three motions for an evidentiary hearing. In his 17 initial motion (Dkt. 15), Petitioner requests an evidentiary hearing be scheduled without 18 providing any explanation as to why he believes a hearing is necessary or appropriate in this 19 matter. In his second motion (Dkt. 22), though Petitioner frames his request as one for an 20 evidentiary hearing, the body of his motion sounds very much like a discovery request. In 21 essence, Petitioner seeks production of records in the prosecutor’s possession pertaining to the 22 credibility of the CI. Petitioner appears to believe that an evidentiary hearing will provide him a 23
PENDING MOTIONS - 3 1 forum for investigating and reviewing allegedly undisclosed records in the prosecutor’s file. In 2 his third motion (Dkt. 23), Petitioner requests an evidentiary hearing to determine if any false or 3 misleading statements included in a search warrant application were material to the issuing 4 court’s finding of probable cause.
5 The decision to hold an evidentiary hearing is committed to the Court’s discretion. 6 Schriro v. Landrigan, 550 U.S. 465, 473 (2007). The federal court, in exercising this discretion, 7 must consider the standards of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). Id. at 474. In accordance with § 2254(d), a 8 habeas corpus petition may be granted with respect to any claim adjudicated on the merits in 9 state court only if the state court’s decision was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable 10 application of, clearly established federal law, as determined by the United States Supreme 11 Court, or if the decision was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the 12 evidence presented. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). 13 As explained above, in determining whether relief is available under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d),
14 the federal habeas court’s review is limited to the record before the state courts. Pinholster, 563 15 U.S. at 181-82; see also Gulbrandson v. Ryan, 738 F.3d 976, 993, n.6 (9th Cir. 2013) (making 16 clear that this evidentiary limitation is applicable to claims brought under both § 2254(d)(1) and 17 § 2254(d)(2)).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 7 AT TACOMA
8 SAMUEL VALDEZ,
9 Petitioner, Case No. C21-5322-DGE-SKV
10 v. ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S 11 RONALD HAYNES, PENDING MOTIONS
12 Respondent.
14 I. INTRODUCTION 15 This is a federal habeas action filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has presented to 16 this Court for consideration a motion seeking discovery (Dkt. 16), a motion for expansion of the 17 record (Dkt. 18), and three motions for an evidentiary hearing (Dkts. 15, 22, 23). Respondent 18 filed a response opposing Petitioner’s first motion for an evidentiary hearing, as well as his 19 motions for discovery and for expansion of the record.1 Dkt. 19. Petitioner filed a traverse in 20 support of his motions. Dkt. 21. The Court, having reviewed each of Petitioner’s motions, and 21
22 1 Petitioner’s remaining motions for an evidentiary hearing do not require a response and, thus, the Court will proceed to resolution of all pending motions at this time. 23
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S
PENDING MOTIONS - 1 1 the balance of the record, concludes that Petitioner is not entitled to the relief he seeks by way of 2 any of the pending motions. The Court addresses each of Petitioner’s motions below. 3 II. DISCUSSION 4 A. Motion for Discovery
5 Petitioner seeks to conduct discovery in this matter to obtain evidence he believes will 6 demonstrate that the confidential informant (“CI”) who went to the police and made allegations 7 that resulted in Petitioner’s conviction was not credible. Dkt. 16. Petitioner claims the CI was 8 dishonest in the allegations he made to the police and prosecutor regarding Petitioner’s conduct, 9 and that the police and prosecutor failed to properly investigate the CI’s allegations and/or 10 withheld from the defense evidence demonstrating that the CI was not credible. See id. 11 Rule 6(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides the Court may, for good 12 cause, authorize a party to conduct discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 13 may limit the extent of discovery. The Supreme Court has previously established that “[a]
14 habeas petitioner, unlike the usual civil litigant in federal court, is not entitled to discovery as a 15 matter of ordinary course.” Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899, 904 (1997). Discovery is properly 16 limited in habeas corpus actions because it “is not the trial itself but a collateral attack upon a 17 standing conviction.” Austad v. Risley, 761 F.2d 1348, 1355 n.4 (9th Cir. 1985). Absent a 18 showing of good cause, the Court should deny a motion for leave to conduct discovery. Rich v. 19 Calderon, 187 F.3d 1064, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 1999). To show good cause, the petitioner must set 20 forth specific facts showing discovery is appropriate in the particular case. Deputy v. Taylor, 19 21 F.3d 1485, 1493 (3rd Cir. 1994) (citing Mayberry v. Petsock, 821 F.2d 179, 185 (3rd Cir. 1987)). 22 The Ninth Circuit has made clear that, in the context of habeas litigation, trial courts “should not 23
PENDING MOTIONS - 2 1 allow prisoners to use federal discovery for fishing expeditions to investigate mere speculation.” 2 Calderon v. U.S. Dist. Court N.D. Cal., 98 F.3d 1102, 1106 (9th Cir. 1996). 3 Petitioner fails to show that there is good cause to permit him to conduct discovery in this 4 federal habeas action. Petitioner, by way of his motion for discovery, appears to be seeking new
5 evidence to support his contention that he was denied a fair trial as a result of prosecutorial 6 misconduct. However, in a federal habeas proceeding, the Court’s review is limited to the record 7 before the state courts at the time the state courts adjudicated the claims. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); 8 Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170, 181-82 (2011). In Pinholster, the Supreme Court made clear 9 that “evidence introduced in federal court has no bearing on § 2254(d)(1) review. If a claim has 10 been adjudicated on the merits by a state court, a federal habeas petitioner must overcome the 11 limitation of § 2254(d)(1) on the record that was before that state court.” Id. at 185. Under this 12 limited scope of review, the Court may not consider new evidence not presented to the state 13 courts. It would therefore serve no purpose to allow Petitioner to conduct the requested
14 discovery. 15 B. Motions for Evidentiary Hearing 16 As noted above, Petitioner has filed three motions for an evidentiary hearing. In his 17 initial motion (Dkt. 15), Petitioner requests an evidentiary hearing be scheduled without 18 providing any explanation as to why he believes a hearing is necessary or appropriate in this 19 matter. In his second motion (Dkt. 22), though Petitioner frames his request as one for an 20 evidentiary hearing, the body of his motion sounds very much like a discovery request. In 21 essence, Petitioner seeks production of records in the prosecutor’s possession pertaining to the 22 credibility of the CI. Petitioner appears to believe that an evidentiary hearing will provide him a 23
PENDING MOTIONS - 3 1 forum for investigating and reviewing allegedly undisclosed records in the prosecutor’s file. In 2 his third motion (Dkt. 23), Petitioner requests an evidentiary hearing to determine if any false or 3 misleading statements included in a search warrant application were material to the issuing 4 court’s finding of probable cause.
5 The decision to hold an evidentiary hearing is committed to the Court’s discretion. 6 Schriro v. Landrigan, 550 U.S. 465, 473 (2007). The federal court, in exercising this discretion, 7 must consider the standards of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). Id. at 474. In accordance with § 2254(d), a 8 habeas corpus petition may be granted with respect to any claim adjudicated on the merits in 9 state court only if the state court’s decision was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable 10 application of, clearly established federal law, as determined by the United States Supreme 11 Court, or if the decision was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the 12 evidence presented. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). 13 As explained above, in determining whether relief is available under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d),
14 the federal habeas court’s review is limited to the record before the state courts. Pinholster, 563 15 U.S. at 181-82; see also Gulbrandson v. Ryan, 738 F.3d 976, 993, n.6 (9th Cir. 2013) (making 16 clear that this evidentiary limitation is applicable to claims brought under both § 2254(d)(1) and 17 § 2254(d)(2)). An evidentiary hearing is not required if the petitioner’s allegations would not 18 entitle him to relief under § 2254(d). Landrigan, 550 U.S. at 474; see also Sully v. Ayers, 725 19 F.3d 1057, 1075 (9th Cir. 2013) (“Although the Supreme Court has declined to decide whether a 20 district court may ever choose to hold an evidentiary hearing before it determines that § 2254(d) 21 has been satisfied . . . an evidentiary hearing is pointless once the district court has determined 22 that § 2254(d) precludes habeas relief.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 23
PENDING MOTIONS - 4 1 At this juncture, it is unclear whether an evidentiary hearing will be necessary because 2 the Court has not yet had an opportunity to assess whether § 2254(d) has been satisfied in this 3 case. Once Petitioner files his response to Respondent’s answer, as he has indicated he intends 4 to do, the Court will review the entirety of the record and determine whether § 2254(d) has been
5 satisfied. Only at that point will the Court be able to render a decision regarding the propriety of 6 granting an evidentiary hearing in this case. Petitioner should refrain from filing further requests 7 for an evidentiary hearing until the briefing on the substance of his claims is complete. Finally, 8 the Court notes that, to the extent Petitioner is attempting to use the evidentiary hearing process 9 as a mechanism to conduct discovery, his efforts are unavailing for the reasons set forth above. 10 C. Motion for Expansion of the Record 11 Petitioner seeks to expand the record before this Court (Dkt. 18), though his motion is 12 somewhat unclear. Petitioner requests in his motion that he be permitted to expand the record to 13 include “all Exhibits and Affidavits attached to his § 2254 petition.” Dkt. 18 at 1. Petitioner
14 goes on to state that these documents “are in the opposing partys possession and should be 15 included within the record in accordance with rule 7(b).” Id. Attached to Petitioner’s motion is 16 an exhibit list and some, but not all, of the exhibits referenced on that list. Id. at 3; Dkt. 18-2. 17 Also attached to Petitioner’s motion are proposed subpoenas for the CI and another trial witness 18 which represents another apparent attempt by Petitioner to conduct discovery in this case. Dkt. 19 18-1. 20 To the extent Petitioner seeks to expand the record to include documents attached to his 21 habeas petition, those documents are already a part of the record and will be considered, as 22 appropriate, when the Court rules on Petitioner’s claims. To the extent Petitioner seeks to 23
PENDING MOTIONS - 5 1 expand the record with exhibits attached to his motion, or with materials obtained through the 2 proposed subpoenas, it appears Petitioner is attempting to introduce new evidence into the record 3 that was not before the state courts at the time they adjudicated his claims. As noted above, this 4 Court’s review of the state court’s adjudication of Petitioner’s claims under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)
5 is limited to the record that was before the state court that adjudicated the claims on the merits. 6 See Pinholster, 563 U.S. at 181 (2011). Petitioner’s motion for expansion of the record is 7 therefore unnecessary and/or inappropriate under the circumstances presented here. 8 III. CONCLUSION 9 Based on the foregoing, Petitioner’s motion for discovery (Dkt. 16), Petitioner’s motion 10 for expansion of the record (Dkt. 18), and Petitioner’s motions for an evidentiary hearing (Dkts. 11 15, 22, 23) are DENIED. The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to Petitioner, to 12 counsel for Respondent, and to the Honorable David G. Estudillo. 13 DATED this 26th day of October, 2021.
14 15 A 16 S. KATE VAUGHAN 17 United States Magistrate Judge
20 21 22 23
PENDING MOTIONS - 6