Thigpen v. Gonzalez

Filing 23

ORDER denying 7 Motion for discovery signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 02/21/12. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

CLYDE WILLIAM THIGPEN,
Petitioner,

11
12
13

vs.
TERRI L. GONZALEZ,
Respondent.

14

ORDER
/

15
16

No. CIV S-11-1241 EFB P

Petitioner is a state prisoner without counsel seeking a writ of habeas corpus. See 28

17

U.S.C. § 2254. On May 16, 2011, he filed a motion for discovery. For the following reasons,

18

petitioner’s motion for discovery is denied.

19

Petitioner seeks to obtain contact information for the psychiatrist whom he claims had

20

diagnosed him with mental illness at the time of his alleged crime. He argues that the

21

psychiatrist’s medical reports will demonstrate that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance in

22

failing to investigate his mental health.1

23
24

“A judge may, for good cause, authorize a party to conduct discovery under the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, and may limit the extent of discovery.” Rule 6(a), Rules Governing

25
1

26

Petitioner has filed exhibits in support of his traverse brief that appear to contain at least
some of the medical records at issue. See Dckt. No. 22.
1

1

§ 2254 Cases. But under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, a federal

2

court cannot grant relief on any claim adjudicated on the merits by a state court unless that

3

adjudication:

4
5
6

(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable
application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme
Court of the United States; or
(2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the
facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.

7
8

28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).

9

Recently, the United States Supreme Court held that in determining the reasonableness of

10

a state court’s ruling under § 2254(d)(1), federal courts are “limited to the record that was before

11

the state court that adjudicated the claim on the merits.” Cullen v. Pinholster, __ U.S. __, 131

12

S.Ct. 1388, 1398 (2011). The court explained that “evidence later introduced in federal court is

13

irrelevant to § 2254(d)(1) review.” Id. at 1400. Under Pinholster, district courts must determine

14

whether a petitioner’s claims survive the § 2254(d)(1) standard on the basis of the state record

15

alone, without reliance on evidence developed in federal evidentiary hearings.

16

Until a petitioner can overcome § 2254(d), it is not an abuse of discretion for this court to

17

deny discovery on those claims. See Woods v. Sinclair, 655 F.3d 886, 904 n. 10 (9th Cir. 2011)

18

(because the federal habeas court’s review was limited to the record before the state court, there

19

was “no need to afford [petitioner] an opportunity to develop evidence in support of his

20

argument that the state court unreasonably applied” federal law, and thus, the district court

21

properly denied an evidentiary hearing); Kemp v. Ryan, 638 F.3d 1245, 1260 (9th Cir. 2011)

22

(“Because Kemp is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing, the district court did not err in denying

23

his request for discovery”).

24

Since this court may not consider anything beyond the state court record to decide

25

whether petitioner can overcome § 2254(d), it would be a waste of resources to permit petitioner

26

to obtain discovery at this time.
2

1
2

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for discovery is denied.
Dated: February 21, 2012.

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3