Gonzalez v. On Habeas Corpus
Filing
24
ORDER GRANTING Petitioner's Motion for Discovery; ORDER APPOINTING Counsel for Limited Purpose of Discovery, signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson on 8/2/19. (This order served on David Porter via email.) (Marrujo, C)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
LUIS MIGUEL GONZALEZ,
12
13
14
Petitioner,
Case No. 1:18-cv-00039-DAD-JDP (HC)
ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S
MOTION FOR DISCOVERY
v.
ECF No. 18 at 38-40
MICHAEL SEXTON,
15
Respondent.
ORDER APPOINTING COUNSEL FOR
LIMITED PURPOSE OF DISCOVERY
16
17
Petitioner Luis Miguel Gonzalez, a state prisoner without counsel, seeks a writ of habeas
18
corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner alleges that his appellate counsel abandoned him
19
during his state appellate proceeding. According to petitioner, his appellate counsel failed to
20
confer with him and to keep him informed of the status of the case. In addition, petitioner, his
21
family members, and the state bar association contacted the appellate counsel to request records,
22
but got no response. Even now, petitioner states, he lacks access to the records that he needs to
23
pursue various postconviction remedies. He claims that his appellate counsel’s inaction
24
constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel and violates the Sixth Amendment of the U.S.
25
Constitution.
26
Petitioner moves for this court’s leave for discovery. ECF No. 18 at 38-40. He seeks
27
certain transcripts and other records from his state criminal proceedings and his case file
28
maintained by his appellate counsel. Respondent has not objected. We will grant petitioner leave
1
1
to conduct limited discovery and appoint him counsel for the narrow purpose of assisting with
2
discovery.1
3
I.
4
Propriety of Discovery
Under Rule 6(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, a federal district court may
5
authorize discovery in a Section 2254 proceeding for good cause. See also Bracy v. Gramley, 520
6
U.S. 899, 9043-05 (1997). Good cause exists if “specific allegations before the court show reason
7
to believe that the petitioner may, if the facts are fully developed,” demonstrate entitlement to
8
habeas relief. Smith v. Mahoney, 611 F.3d 978, 996-97 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Bracy, 520 U.S.
9
at 908-09). When good cause exists, the court must “provide the necessary facilities and
10
procedures for an adequate inquiry.” Smith v. Mahoney, 611 F.3d 978, 996-97 (9th Cir. 2010);
11
accord; Earp v. Davis, 881 F.3d 1135, 1142 (9th Cir. 2018) (reasoning that abuse of discretion
12
occurs if “discovery is indispensable to a fair, rounded, development of the material facts”). The
13
petitioner seeking discovery need not show that he will ultimately prevail on his habeas claim.
14
See Smith, 611 F.3d at 997. The district court may allow discovery without scheduling an
15
evidentiary hearing, unless the absence of an evidentiary hearing would make discovery futile.
16
See Kemp v. Ryan, 638 F.3d 1245, 1260 (9th Cir. 2011); Jones v. Wood, 114 F.3d 1002, 1009 (9th
17
Cir. 1997).
18
Here, petitioner has shown good cause for discovery. Petitioner claims that he received
19
ineffective assistance of counsel from his appellate attorney because, among other things, she
20
failed to keep him informed of the status of his case during his appeal, despite repeated requests
21
for information by petitioner and his family. See ECF No. 1 at 4; ECF No. 18 at 2, 5-6.
22
According to petitioner, he learned that he had lost on appeal only long after the appeal was
23
decided. See ECF No. 18 at 2; ECF No. 14 at 5. His late discovery of the appellate decision
24
allegedly precluded him from filing a timely petition for review before the California Supreme
25
Court. See ECF No. 1 at 4. Petitioner also states that despite his repeated requests—and an
26
1
27
28
Earlier in the case, we recommended that the court deny a motion filed by respondent, noting
that if the court were to adopt our recommendation, we would appoint counsel and allow
petitioner to conduct discovery. ECF No. 19 at 3. The presiding district judge adopted the
recommendation in full. ECF No. 23 at 1-2.
2
1
instruction from the State Bar of California—his appellate counsel still has not given him the
2
records pertaining to his case. See ECF No. 1 at 14-15; ECF No. 14 at 3-5; ECF No. 18 at 30.
3
Petitioner indicates that because his appellate counsel has not provided him with necessary
4
materials, he cannot seek state or federal habeas relief. See ECF No. 18 at 39-40. Appointed
5
counsel’s complete abandonment of a criminal defendant can support a cognizable claim of
6
ineffective assistance of counsel.2 We are satisfied that petitioner has shown good cause for
7
discovery, so we will allow it.
8
II.
9
Appointment of Counsel
If necessary for effective discovery, a district court must appoint counsel for a habeas
10
petitioner who is eligible for counsel under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A. See Rule 6(a), Rules Governing
11
Section 2254 Cases. Under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B), a district court may appoint counsel for
12
a petitioner if “the interests of justice so require” and the petitioner is “financially eligible.” The
13
“interests of justice” standard is a context-specific inquiry, and no bright-line rule applies here.
14
See Martel v. Clair, 565 U.S. 648, 663 (2012). A habeas petitioner is financially eligible for
15
counsel if he cannot afford counsel, and this standard is “a lower standard than indigency.”
16
United States v. Sarsoun, 834 F.2d 1358, 1362 (7th Cir. 1987). The court must resolve any doubt
17
about the petitioner’s financial eligibility in his favor, and “erroneous determinations of eligibility
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
See Michigan v. Harvey, 494 U.S. 344, 357 (1990) (reasoning that the accused has the
constitutional right to assist his appointed counsel on appeal); Avery v. State of Alabama, 308
U.S. 444, 446 (1940) (“[T]he denial of opportunity for appointed counsel to confer, to consult
with the accused and to prepare his defense, could convert the appointment of counsel into a sham
and nothing more than a formal compliance with the Constitution’s requirement that an accused
be given the assistance of counsel. The Constitution’s guarantee of assistance of counsel cannot
be satisfied by mere formal appointment.”); Daniels v. Woodford, 428 F.3d 1181, 1201 (9th Cir.
2005) (reasoning that “complete breakdown in communication” rendered counsel’s assistance
ineffective). Complete abandonment by appointed counsel can also establish cause for excusing
procedural default. See Bradford v. Davis, 923 F.3d 599, 613 (9th Cir. 2019). We note that, to
prevail on his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, petitioner may need to show, later in the
case, how he suffered prejudice from his appellate counsel’s deficiency—that is, whether he
would have prevailed if he had pursued and obtained review by the California Supreme Court.
But it appears that petitioner cannot demonstrate such prejudice or litigate this case at this time
without access to the requested documents.
3
1
may be corrected at a later time.” Admin. Office of the U.S. Courts, Guide to Judiciary Policies
2
and Procedures, Vol. 7, pt. A, § 210.40.30(b).
3
Here, we conclude that appointment of counsel is necessary for effective discovery.
4
Petitioner, his family members, and the state bar association have allegedly attempted to have his
5
appellate counsel produce various documents, but they have not succeeded. See ECF No. 1 at 14-
6
15; ECF No. 14 at 3-5; ECF No. 18 at 2, 5-6, 30-31. We find that petitioner, who appears pro se,
7
cannot obtain the necessary documents on his own and that an attorney is necessary for effective
8
discovery. Thus, appointment of counsel is required under Rule 6(a) of the Rules Governing
9
Section 2254 cases, and appointing counsel will serve the interests of justice under 18 U.S.C.
10
§ 3006A. We find that petitioner is financially eligible because he has been eligible for appointed
11
counsel for his state court proceedings, and his economic circumstances presumably have not
12
changed during his incarceration.
13
III.
Scope of Discovery
14
Petitioner appears to be seeking two sets of documents: (1) the transcripts and other
15
records from his state criminal proceedings, ECF No. 18 at 40, and (2) his case file maintained by
16
his appellate counsel, ECF No. 1 at 14. As for the first set of documents, we construe petitioner’s
17
discovery motion to be requesting the usual state-court records lodged in Section 2254 cases, such
18
as the reporter’s and the clerk’s transcripts. See Rule 5(c)-(d), Rules Governing Section 2254
19
Cases. Petitioner may obtain such records from respondent. Cf. id. As for the second set of
20
documents, petitioner may obtain them from his appellate counsel. We anticipate that obtaining
21
the two sets of documents would be a manageable task for appointed counsel. The appointed
22
counsel may be able to obtain the documents through informal means. While we encourage the
23
parties to resolve any disputes themselves, the parties are free to seek the court’s assistance
24
through appropriate motions.
25
In sum, we will appoint counsel for petitioner for the limited purpose of conducting
26
discovery. By the deadline set forth below, the appointed counsel must file a notice of
27
appearance or a motion to withdraw representation. Absent the court’s grant of a motion to
28
withdraw, the appointed counsel will assist petitioner in conducting limited discovery of the
4
1
documents identified above. After the completion of discovery, the appointed counsel must file a
2
notice informing the court that the requested discovery has been completed, and that notice will
3
terminate the appointment. Any question about the appointment may be directed at the assigned
4
magistrate judge’s chambers, at jdporders@caed.uscourts.gov.
5
IV.
6
Order
1. The Federal Defender for the Eastern District of California is appointed for the limited
7
purpose of conducting discovery consistent with this order.
8
2. The clerk of court directed to:
9
a. serve a copy of this order on the Office of the Federal Public Defender for
10
the Eastern District of California, Attention: Habeas Appointment.
11
b. send an electronic copy of this order to attorney David Porter at
12
David_Porter@fd.org.
13
3. By Monday, August 05, 2019, the appointed counsel must file a notice of appearance
14
or a motion to withdraw representation.
15
a. By Friday, September 20, 2019, the appointed counsel must file a notice
16
indicating the completion of discovery unless the court grants a motion to
17
withdraw.
b. A notice on the completion of discovery will terminate the counsel’s
18
19
appointment.
20
21
IT IS SO ORDERED.
22
23
Dated:
August 2, 2019
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
24
25
26
No. 202
27
28
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?