Hill v. Ayers

Filing 331

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken GRANTING PETITIONERS 327 MOTION FOR DISCOVERY. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/29/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

OAKLAND DIVISION

11
12

Michael HILL,

Case Number 4-94-cv-641-CW

Petitioner,

13

v.

14
15

DEATH-PENALTY CASE
ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S
MOTION FOR DISCOVERY

Kevin CHAPPELL, Acting Warden of
San Quentin State Prison,1

16
Respondent.

[Doc. No. 327]

17
18

Petitioner moves to inspect the files of the Alameda County

19

District Attorney and the Oakland Police Department that are

20

relevant to his case and that have not been produced already.

21

(Doc. No. 327.)

22

83 (1963), and its progeny.

23

motion.

24

Petitioner relies on Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S.
(Id. at 2.)

Respondent opposes the

(Doc. No. 329.)

The Court previously found good cause for, and ordered, the

25

discovery that Petitioner currently seeks.

(Doc. No. 97.)

26

However, the Court of Appeals held that discovery in this action

27
28

1

Kevin Chappell is automatically substituted for his predecessor
as Respondent pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d).

1

was premature at that time because Petitioner had not yet filed a

2

federal habeas petition.

3

“issue[d] a writ of mandamus (1) vacating the district court’s

4

order, and (2) prohibiting the issuance of any discovery orders

5

until Hill files a petition for writ of habeas corpus in federal

6

court presenting only exhausted claims.”

7

Ct. N.D. Cal. (Hill), 120 F.3d 927, 928 (9th Cir. 1997).

8
9

Accordingly, the Court of Appeals

Calderon v. U.S. Dist.

Petitioner subsequently initiated exhaustion proceedings in
the Supreme Court of California.

During those proceedings, he

10

twice sought the discovery at issue.

11

supreme court denied Petitioner’s discovery motions for lack of

12

jurisdiction.

13

800 P.2d 1159, 1204–05 (Cal. 1990)).)

14

Both times, the state

(Doc. No. 329-1 at 3 (citing People v. Gonzalez,

Following the completion of exhaustion proceedings, this

15

Court ordered Petitioner to litigate discovery in Alameda

16

Superior Court pursuant to In re Steele, 85 P.3d 444 (Cal. 2004).

17

(Doc. No. 254 at 1.)

18

Steele request based not on the record in the case but because

19

state courts are short-staffed in contrast to federal courts.

20

(Doc. No. 327-3 at 5–7.)

21

The superior court denied Petitioner’s

There is no basis for the Court to reconsider its previous

22

finding of good cause for the discovery Petitioner seeks, as the

23

factual basis for that finding has not materially changed,2 and

24

there has been no material change in the relevant law, see

25

Gonzalez v. Wong, 667 F.3d 965 (9th Cir. 2011).

Cf. Civ. L.R. 7-

26
2

27
28

Petitioner has developed additional relevant evidence. (e.g.,
Doc. No. 327-4 at 2 (prosecutor’s letter promising not to prosecute
Michael McCray, who Petitioner claimed had committed the murders of
which Petitioner was convicted).)

1

9(b).

2

the Court of Appeals established for the discovery, as he has

3

filed a federal habeas petition, (Doc. No. 193), that presents

4

only exhausted claims, (see Doc. No. 259 at 21).

5

Petitioner’s discovery motion, (Doc. No. 327), is granted.

6

In addition, Petitioner has satisfied the condition that

Accordingly,

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

DATED:

5/29/2012
_______________

______________________________
CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge