Thomas Martin v. Neil McDowell

Filing 28

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: (see attached) In sum, none of Petitioner's objections is meritorious. The Court, therefore, accepts the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. IT IS ORDERED that judgment be entered dismissing the Petition with prejudice. (jm)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

THOMAS MARTIN,
Petitioner,

12

v.

13
14

NEIL McDOWELL, Warden,
Respondent.

15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. CV 16-3464-ODW (FFM)
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED
STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition, records on file,

17
18

relevant pleadings, and the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate

19

Judge. Further, the Court has engaged in a de novo review of those portions of the

20

Report to which Petitioner has objected.
The bulk of the arguments that Petitioner makes in his objections is sufficiently

21
22

addressed in the magistrate judge’s Report. A few of his arguments, however, warrant

23

further discussion. First, Petitioner maintains that the magistrate judge applied Schlup

24

v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 327, 332, 115 S. Ct. 851, 130 L. Ed.2d 808 (1995), in a way that

25

held Petitioner to a higher standard than that required by the Supreme Court.

26

Specifically, Petitioner complains that the magistrate judge required Petitioner to show

27

actual innocence by presenting evidence that could not have been presented at trial,

28

///

1

rather than establishing actual innocence based merely on evidence that was not

2

presented at trial.

3

This objection is not well-taken. To be sure, citing Judge Kozinski’s concurring

4

opinion in Lee v. Lampert, 653 F.3d 929, 937 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc), the magistrate

5

judge stated the following: “As explained in Lee, to establish actual innocence under

6

Schlup, the petitioner must show not only that reliable evidence of his innocence was

7

not presented at trial, but that it “could not have been, presented at trial.” Lee, 653

8

F.3d at 945 (Kozinski, J., concurring) (emphasis added) (citing Schlup, 513 U.S. at

9

324-28).” (Report and Rec. at 14.) Thereafter, the magistrate judge explained that all

10

of the evidence that Petitioner presented, save perhaps an unsworn letter from a garage

11

door company employee, could have been, or was, presented at trial.1 However, the

12

magistrate judge also explained that, even if Petitioner’s purported “new evidence”

13

were considered, it did not establish actual innocence under Schlup. Accordingly,

14

contrary to Petitioner’s assertions, the magistrate judge did not err in its consideration

15

of the evidence presented by Petitioner.

16

Second, Petitioner faults the magistrate judge for considering whether the

17

proposed new evidence and proposed testimony was reliable and credible. According

18

to Petitioner, the magistrate judge was required to “take all of Petitioner’s allegations

19

as true.” (Objections at 6.) There is, according to Petitioner, “no room for any

20

credibility determinations on the part of the reviewing Magistrate.” (Id.)

21

Petitioner is incorrect. Indeed, as the magistrate judge noted in his Report and

22

Recommendation, Schlup explicitly calls for the reviewing court to consider whether

23

the proposed new evidence is reliable and whether any proposed testimony would be

24

considered credible:

25

Obviously, the Court is not required to test the new

26

evidence by a standard appropriate for deciding a motion

27
1

28

The magistrate judge noted that the letter from the garage door employee was
not competent evidence because it was not sworn under penalty of perjury.
2

1

for summary judgment. Instead, the court may consider

2

how the timing of the submission and the likely credibility

3

of the affiants bear on the probable reliability of that

4

evidence.

5

Schlup, 513 U.S. at 332 (emphasis added) (citations omitted). Only after considering

6

the reliability of the proffered evidence can the reviewing court make a “probabilistic

7

determination about what reasonable, properly instructed jurors would do.”

8

Id. (citations omitted).

9

Third, Petitioner asserts that the magistrate judge erred in concluding that

10

Petitioner failed to provide any evidentiary support for his allegation that the victim’s

11

phone records were altered to omit information regarding whether the given phone call

12

was incoming or outgoing. According to Petitioner, the victim or the prosecutor must

13

have altered the phone records because one page of the records shows whether the

14

given call was incoming or outgoing, whereas the other pages do not indicate the

15

origin of the call. But as the magistrate judge observed, there is no evidence other than

16

Petitioner’s self-serving speculation to show that the records were altered. It appears

17

that the first page produced by Petitioner is in a different format from the other pages.

18

In this regard, the pages that Petitioner claims were altered contain information (such

19

as whether the given call was made during peak or off-peak time) that is not included

20

in the one page that Petitioner claims was unaltered. Whether the telephone company

21

produced all the records in both formats or mixed the production of formats is

22

unknown. Petitioner has presented no evidence to demonstrate how the records

23

happened to be in multiple formats. However, regardless of the many possibilities

24

explaining why different information appeared in the phone records, no evidence

25

suggests that the records were altered by the victim or the prosecutor.

26

///

27

///

28

///
3

1
2
3
4

In sum, none of Petitioner’s objections is meritorious. The Court, therefore,
accepts the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge.
IT IS ORDERED that judgment be entered dismissing the Petition with
prejudice.

5
6

Dated: _April 25, 2017
__________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT II
United States District Judge

7
8
9
10

Presented by:

11
12
13
14

/S/ FREDERICK F. MUMM
FREDERICK F. MUMM
United States Magistrate Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4