Biddle v. Knipp

Filing 27

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 7/2/2013 ORDERING that petitioner's 25 motion to expand the record is GRANTED with regards to Shasta County Local Rule 13.05, and DENIED with regards to Canon 3 of the California Counsel On Judicial Performance and a postmarked envelope. (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

RICKIE A. BIDDLE,
Petitioner,

11
12
13
14
15
16

No. 2:12-cv-01119 JAM JFM (HC)

vs.
WILLIAM KNIPP,
Respondent.

ORDER
/

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

17

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On October 22, 2012, respondent filed an answer to the

18

petition for writ of habeas corpus. ECF No. 15. On January 11, 2013, petitioner filed a reply to

19

respondent’s answer. ECF No. 26. This case is now submitted for decision and in due course,

20

the court will issue its findings and recommendations on the merits of the petition. Pending

21

before the court is petitioner’s motion to expand the record pursuant to Rule 7 of the Rules

22

Governing § 2254 Cases. ECF No. 25. Respondent filed no opposition to the motion.

23

Petitioner seeks habeas relief on the basis that, inter alia, his constitutional right

24

under the Sixth Amendment was violated because his counsel did not advise him of a superior

25

court local rule “that prohibited plea bargains after the trial readiness conference.” ECF No. 1 at

26

13; see also id. at 15 n.9. In his motion to expand the record, petitioner presents the following
1

1

documents in support of his reply to respondent’s answer: (1) Shasta County Superior Court

2

Local Rule 13.051 (“Shasta County Local Rule 13.05”); (2) Canon 3 of the California Counsel

3

On Judicial Performance; and (3) Postmarked envelope showing “when and how [petitioner]

4

discovered Local Rule 13.05.” ECF No. 25 at 1-2.

5

Under Rule 7 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, a district court has the

6

discretion to expand the record with additional materials which are relevant to the petition. Rule

7

7(a), Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases. Generally, the types of materials that may be admitted

8

“include letters predating the filing of the petition, documents, exhibits, and answers under oath

9

to written interrogatories propounded by the judge.” Rule 7(b), Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases.

10

With regards to Shasta County Local Rule 13.05, petitioner argues that “no one

11

ever mentioned or identified Local Rule 13.05 to Petitioner, not counsel or the trial court.” ECF

12

No. 25 at 3. Petitioner further states that his appellate counsel referred to the local rule as “an

13

unwritten local policy.” Id. The court finds petitioner has made a showing that Shasta County

14

Local Rule 13.05 is relevant to his claim for ineffective assistance of counsel. Rule 7(a), Fed. R.

15

Governing § 2254 Cases. Therefore, Shasta County Local Rule 13.05 may be included to

16

complete the court’s record as to the relevant state rules in effect at the time petitioner claims he

17

received ineffective assistance of counsel.

18

However, petitioner has not made a showing that Canon 3 of the California

19

Counsel On Judicial Performance and a postmarked envelope showing his receipt of the local

20

rule and canon are relevant to his petition. Therefore, the court denies petitioner’s motion to

21

expand the record to include these two documents.

22

/////

23
24
25
26

1

Shasta County Local Rule 13.05(A)(1)(a)(I) provides, in part: “If trial counsel on the
day of trial present to the trial court a negotiated disposition, and they are able to articulate
changed circumstances that are both material and demonstrated to have been unforeseeable at the
trial assignment calendar, the home court judge is to be contacted by the tria1 court judge and
advised of the foregoing.” See ECF No. 25 at 7.
2

1

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

2

1. Petitioner’s motion to expand the record (ECF No. 51) is granted with regards

3

to Shasta County Local Rule 13.05, and denied with regards to Canon 3 of the California

4

Counsel On Judicial Performance and a postmarked envelope.

5

DATED: July 2, 2013

6
7
8

ALLISON CLAIRE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

9
10
bidd1119.mte

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3