White v. Lizzarraga

Filing 29

ORDER signed by Senior Judge James K. Singleton on 6/23/2016 ORDERING that this matter is ramdonly referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan to hold an evidentiary hearing, as he deems appropriate, to determine: 1) whether trial counsel communicated the prosecution's plea bargain offer to resolve the case for a 10-year sentence to White and/or whether the prosecutor communicated such an offer to White; and 2) whether White understood and rejected the offer. The appointment of Benjamin Ramos as attorney for White shall continue for purposes of this evidentiary hearing. Once this Court has received the Magistrate Judge's findings of fact and recommendation and any parties' objections to the recommendation, this Court will resolve the remaining issue and enter final judgment. Until final judgment, this Court's prior order will be subject to revision in conformity with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). (Zignago, K.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
MATTHEW DOUGLAS WHITE,
No. 2:14-cv-01797-JKS
Petitioner,
ORDER
vs.
JOE LIZZARRAGA, Warden, Mule Creek
State Prison,
Respondent.

Matthew Douglas White, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for a Writ of
Habeas Corpus with this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. By order dated December 8, 2015,
this Court decided the majority of claims raised in the Petition, but concluded that limited
discovery was necessary as to White’s claim that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to
convey a plea bargain offer. Docket No. 20. Since that time, the parties have conferred, issued a
discovery plan, and completed the depositions of White’s trial counsel and the Deputy District
Attorney who made the plea offer. Docket No. 23. The parties have additionally submitted to
the Court further briefing on the results of discovery. Docket Nos. 25-28.
After reviewing the supplemental briefing and the evidence in support, the Court
concludes that disputes of genuine issues of material fact remain. The parties apparently do not
dispute that an offer of 10 years was made: the Deputy District Attorney confirmed at his
deposition that an offer was made, and White’s trial counsel does not deny this, although he does
not remember whether an offer was, in fact, made. In any event, White apparently denies that he
received such an offer. An evidentiary hearing before a Magistrate Judge will enable White to
testify under oath subject to cross-examination, and enable the Magistrate Judge to consider the

testimony of the lawyers concerned, determine the credibility of all witnesses, and resolve all
disputed issues of material fact.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT this matter is RANDOMLY REFERRED to
U.S. Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan to hold an evidentiary hearing, as he deems
appropriate, to determine: 1) whether trial counsel communicated the prosecution’s plea bargain
offer to resolve the case for a 10-year sentence to White and/or whether the prosecutor
communicated such an offer to White; and 2) whether White understood and rejected the offer.
Judge Brennan shall also recommend a decision as to what extent Cullen v. Pinholster, 131 S. Ct.
1388, 1398 (2011), limits the evidence this Court may consider pursuant to its review under 28
U.S.C. § 2254(d); and whether counsel’s advice to White satisfied Lafler v. Cooper, 132 S. Ct.
1376, 1385-86 (2012), with respect to the 10-year plea bargain offer. The Court requests that the
appointment of Benjamin Ramos as attorney for White shall continue for purposes of this
evidentiary hearing. Once this Court has received the Magistrate Judge’s findings of fact and
recommendation and any parties’ objections to the recommendation, this Court will resolve the
remaining issue and enter final judgment. Until final judgment, this Court’s prior order will be
subject to revision in conformity with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b).
Dated: June 23, 2016.
/s/James K. Singleton, Jr.
JAMES K. SINGLETON, JR.
United States District Judge

2