Tidwell v. Martel

Filing 45

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 8/1/14 denying 37 Motion to Compel. (Dillon, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

JUAN M. TIDWELL, SR.,

11
12
13
14

No. 2:11-cv-0489 KJM CKD P

Petitioner,
v.

ORDER

WILLIAM KNIPP, et al.,
Respondents.

15
16

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

17

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This action proceeds on the amended petition filed June 22, 2012.

18

(ECF No. 11 (“Ptn.”).) Petitioner challenges his 2006 conviction for kidnapping to commit rape

19

and/or robbery, penetration with a foreign object, sexual battery by restraint, and two counts of

20

forcible rape, for which he was sentenced to a state prison term of 151 years to life. (Id. at 1.)

21

Before the court is petitioner’s motion for discovery pursuant to Rule 6(a) of the Federal

22

Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, U.S.C. foll. § 2254. (ECF No. 37 (“Mtn.”).) Respondent

23

has filed an opposition (ECF No. 41), and petitioner has filed a reply (ECF No. 42). For the

24

reasons set forth below, the court will deny petitioner’s motion.

25

I. Petitioner’s Motion

26

The petition asserts five grounds for federal habeas relief. (Ptn. at 4-6.) Petitioner raised

27

Grounds One and Two on direct review and Grounds Three through Five on state collateral

28

review. (See ECF No. 31 at 12.) All five grounds were considered and denied on the merits in
1

1

state court.1 (See Lod. Docs. 2, 6, 12.)

2

In his pending motion, petitioner seeks thirteen separate items of “material and

3

exculpatory” evidence pursuant to Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). He asserts that this

4

“existing . . . favorable [evidence] . . . has not been provided,” violating his federal right to due

5

process. (ECF No. 37.) The evidence petitioner seeks consists of (1) trial testimony concerning

6

petitioner’s 1998 conviction for sexual assault; (2) “any reports” documenting contamination of

7

the victim’s undergarments; (3) a copy of certain shorthand notes made by the court reporter; (4)

8

“any evidence” that the victim testified in exchange for “monetary or legal benefits”; (5) evidence

9

of “specific instances of misconduct bearing on the credibility” of the Sacramento Police

10

Department; (6)-(12) “any statements” or “any reports” bearing on certain factual issues in the

11

case; and (13) “any other relevant and material exculpatory evidence.” (Id. at 3-4.) Petitioner

12

asserts that he has diligently sought the requested evidence and the government has so far failed

13

to provide it, warranting a discovery order. (Id. at 5.)

14

Respondent asserts that, under Cullen v. Pinholster, 131 S. Ct. 1388 (2011) and

15

subsequent cases interpreting it, 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) bars the introduction of new evidence on

16

federal habeas review; thus, petitioner’s motion should be denied. (ECF No. 41.)

17

II. Analysis

18

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”), which applies to the

19

instant petition, mandates that a federal court may not grant a writ of habeas corpus based on any

20

claim that was adjudicated on the merits by a state court unless the state court decision “(1)

21

resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly

22

established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or (2) resulted

23

in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence

24

presented in the State court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).

25

/////

26

1

27
28

Claim 3 was denied on procedural grounds and, alternatively, on the merits. (Lod. Doc. 12.)
See Stephens v. Branker, 570 F.3d 198, 208 (4th Cir. 2009) (“[W]e agree with our sister circuits
that an alternative merits determination to a procedural bar ruling is entitled to AEDPA
deference.”).
2

1

A habeas petitioner, unlike the usual civil litigant in federal court, is not entitled to

2

discovery as a matter of ordinary course. See Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899, 904 (1997).

3

However, Rule 6(a) of the Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254,

4

provides that a “judge may, for good cause, authorize a party to conduct discovery under the

5

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and limit the extent of discovery.” Habeas petitioners may

6

conduct discovery only when specific allegations show reason to “believe that the petitioner may,

7

if the facts are fully developed, be able to demonstrate that he is . . . entitled to relief.” Bracy,

8

520 U.S. at 908–09; Smith v. Mahoney, 611 F.3d 978, 996 (9th Cir. 2010).

9

In Pinholster, 131 S. Ct. at 1398, the Supreme Court held that federal habeas review under

10

§ 2254(d)(1) and § 2254(d)(2) is limited to the record that was before the state court that

11

adjudicated the claim on the merits. See Coddington v. Martel, 2013 WL 5486801 at *4 (E.D.

12

Cal. Sept. 30, 2013) (citing cases). Once a state court has decided the claim on the merits,

13

“evidence later introduced in federal court is irrelevant.” Id. at 1400; see also Ryan v. Gonzales,

14

133 S. Ct. 696, 708 (2013) (as review of claims subject to § 2254(d) is “limited to the record that

15

was before the state court that adjudicated the claim on the merits[,] . . . any evidence that a

16

petitioner might have would be inadmissible.”), citing Pinholster, 131 S. Ct. at 1398;

17

Runningeagle v. Ryan, 686 F. 3d 758, 773 (9th Cir. 2012) (capital habeas petitioner was “not

18

entitled to a an evidentiary hearing or additional discovery in federal court” because AEDPA

19

review was limited to the record before the state court that adjudicated petitioner’s claims on the

20

merits); Wood v. Ryan, 693 F.3d 1104, 1122 (9th Cir. 2012) (petitioner “not entitled to an

21

evidentiary hearing or additional discovery in federal court” because his claim was adjudicated on

22

the merits under § 2254(d)).

23

Because any additional discovery materials would not be reviewable, as set forth above,

24

petitioner cannot show good cause for his request under Rule 6(a). See Smith v. Chappell, 2014

25

WL 465290 at *3 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 3, 2014). Nor has petitioner demonstrated that the strength of

26

the requested new evidence warrants a stay of federal proceedings to allow petitioner to return to

27

state court, insofar as this procedure may be available in some cases. See Gonzalez v. Wong, 667

28

F.3d 965, 979-980 (9th Cir. 2011).
3

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT petitioner’s motion to compel discovery

2

(ECF No. 37) is denied.

3

Dated: August 1, 2014

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4
5
6
7
8
9

2 / tidw0489.mtc

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4