Hughes v. People of the State of California

Filing 43

ORDER DENYING Petitioner's Motion for Appointment of Expert Witnesses 33 , signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 5/16/16. (Hellings, J)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5

BERNARD C. HUGHES,

6

CASE NO. 1:14-cv-01237-LJO-SKO HC

Petitioner,

7

v.

8

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION
FOR APPOINTMENT OF EXPERT WITNESSES

WARDEN MARTIN BITER,

9

Respondent.

(Doc. 33)

10
11
12

Petitioner, proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

13 § 2254, moves for appointment of expert witnesses including (1) an expert to interpret DNA samples
14 and (2) a handwriting expert to “compare letters from the victim’s caretaker with known signatures and
15 samples with the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation or other means.” Doc. 33 at
16 2. The motion neither sets forth authority for the appointment of these experts nor offers any
17 explanation of why these experts are necessary. The Court’s examination of the conceivable uses of
18 such experts in light of the grounds set forth in the petition reveals no basis for appointing either expert.
19

DNA expert The request for a DNA expert potentially relates to grounds one or three of the

20 petition, or both. The Court previously dismissed ground three as a state claim not cognizable in federal
21 habeas corpus proceeding. Docs. 9 and 11.
22

Ground one alleges that the state court denied Petitioner due process by failing to provide access

23 to exculpatory biological evidence, specifically, a knit cap with hairs and other DNA identified as not
24 belonging to Petitioner. The petition contends that the state court failed to link the DNA on the hat to a
25 particular third party. Evaluating whether the state court violated Petitioner’s rights by denying him
26 access to the cap does not require identification of the third-party source of the DNA.
27

Handwriting expert

Petitioner’s request for a handwriting expert relates to the eighth ground

28 for habeas relief, which alleges that the state court abused its discretion in failing to permit a
1
29
30

1 handwriting expert to testify regarding letters sent to Petitioner from the victim’s caretaker. This ground
2 was previously dismissed as a state claim not cognizable in federal habeas corpus proceeding. Docs. 9
3 and 11. As a result, no apparent reason remains for appointing a handwriting expert.
Possible other uses of experts Petitioner is not entitled to an expert witness to develop a basis

4

5 for one or more additional grounds for habeas relief. A federal habeas proceeding is not an opportunity
6 for a petitioner to develop facts not ascertained in state proceedings.
“Habeas is an important safeguard whose goal is to correct real and obvious wrongs. It was

7

8 never meant to be a fishing expedition for habeas petitioners to ‘explore their case in search of its
th
9 existence.’” Rich v. Calderon, 187 F.3d 1064, 1067 (9 Cir. 1999) (quoting Calderon v. United States
th
10 District Court for the Northern District of California (Nicolaus), 98 F.3d 1102, 1106 (9 Cir. 1996)).

11 Habeas petitioners are not routinely entitled to discovery. Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899, 904 (1997).
12 The discovery provisions of the federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not generally apply in habeas cases.
13 Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286, 295 (1969). See Rule 6(a) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases (“A
14 judge may, for good cause, authorize a party to conduct discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil
15 Procedure and may limit the extent of discovery”). The Court may not appoint either expert to permit
16 Petition to attempt to uncover other grounds for habeas relief.
Conclusion and Order

17

Petitioner's having failed to demonstrate a basis for appointment of the requested experts, the

18

19 motion for appointment of expert witness is hereby DENIED.
20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22 Dated:
23

May 16, 2016

/s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
29
30

Sheila K. Oberto

2

.