Garcia v. McDowell

Filing 37

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE; DENYING MOTIONS FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING AND APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 11/18/2019. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(tshS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/18/2019)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

ESEQUIEL “PAUL” GARCIA,
United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Petitioner,

12

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE;
DENYING MOTIONS FOR
EVIDENTIARY HEARING AND
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

v.

13
14

Case No. 16-05301 BLF (PR)

NEIL MCDOWELL, Warden,

15

Respondent.

16
17
18

On September 20, 2016, Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a

19

petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his state

20

conviction. (Docket No. 10.) On January 20, 2017, the Court granted Petitioner’s request

21

to stay the mixed petition in order to exhaust additional claims in the state courts. (Docket

22

No. 22.) The case was administratively closed pending the stay of this action. (Id.)

23

Petitioner was directed to notify the Court within twenty-eight days of the California

24

Supreme Court’s decision denying him relief by filing a motion to reopen this action. (Id.)

25

On January 16, 2019, the Court granted Petitioner’s subsequently filed motions to reopen

26

the action and for leave to file a second amended petition. (Docket No. 29.) Petitioner’s

27

second amended petition is before the Court for an initial review. (Docket No. 35.)

28

///

BACKGROUND

1

According to the petition, Petitioner was convicted by a jury in Santa Clara County

2
3

Superior Court of first-degree murder; the jury also found true the special circumstance

4

allegation of aiding and abetting. (SAP at 1, 2.) Petitioner was sentenced on May 10,

5

2012, to life without the possibility of parole. (Id. at 1.)
Petitioner pursued a direct appeal as well as a concurrent petition for writ of habeas

6
7
8
9

corpus in the state courts without success. (Id. at 3-6.) Thereafter, Petitioner continued to
pursue various post judgment remedies in the state courts and with other entities. (Id. at 742.)
Petitioner filed a second amended petition, which is the operative petition in this

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

action, on June 16, 2019. (Docket No. 35, hereinafter “SAP.”)

12

DISCUSSION

13
14

I.

Standard of Review
This court may entertain a petition for a writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person

15

in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in
16
17

custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254(a).

18
19
20
21
22

It shall “award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause
why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant
or person detained is not entitled thereto.” Id. § 2243.
II.

Legal Claims
Petitioner raises the following grounds for federal habeas relief: (1) his rights under

23

the Confrontation Clause was violated when the trial court admitted both oral and written

24

testimonial statements from non-testifying co-defendant, Miguel Chaldez, (Docket No. 35-

25

6 at 1); (2) ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to investigate and other failings, (id.

26

at 84, 119); (3-I) prosecutorial misconduct based on misrepresentation and use of perjured

27

testimony and false evidence, (id. at 223, 326-329); (3-II) ineffective assistance of trial and

28

2

1

appellate counsel for failure to investigate, (id. at 223, 395-398); (4) juror misconduct due

2

to outside influences and related ineffective assistance of counsel claim, (Docket No. 35-7

3

at 1, 27); (5) prosecutorial misconduct based on improper cross-examination, (id. at 52-

4

53); (6) ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to conduct reasonable pre-trial

5
6
7
8
9

investigation into Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendment violations, (id. at 81-82); (7) his
conviction was based on less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt of each and every
element of the charged crime, (id. at 175); (8) his counsel had a conflict of interest that
materially compromised the defense, (id. at 195); (9) he was denied his right to retain
counsel of his choice, (id. at 244); and (10) cumulative error, (id. at 263). Liberally
construed, these claims are cognizable under § 2254 and merit an answer from

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14

Respondent.
In the SAP, Petitioner requests an evidentiary hearing and another motion for
appointment of counsel. (Docket No. 35-5 at 73-74; Docket No. 35-7 at 306.) The Court
shall not hold an evidentiary hearing unless an applicant shows that: (A) a claim relies on
either a new rule of constitutional law made retroactive and previously unavailable, or a

15

factual predicate that could not have been previously discovered through the exercise of

16

due diligence; or (B) “the facts underlying the claim would be sufficient to establish by

17

clear and convincing evidence that but for constitutional error, no reasonable fact-finder

18

would have found the applicant guilty of the underlying offense.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2).

19

In Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170, 180-81 (2011), the United States Supreme

20

Court clarified the legal landscape as to evidentiary hearings under § 2254(e)(2) by

21

holding that habeas “review under § 2254(d)(1) is limited to the record that was before the

22

state court that adjudicated the claim on the merits.” Id. at 180-81. The Supreme Court

23

reasoned that the “backward-looking language” present in § 2254(d)(1) “requires an

24

examination of the state-court decision at the time it was made” and that therefore the

25

record under review must be “limited to the record in existence at that same time i.e., the

26

record before the state court.” Id. The Supreme Court held that this reading was

27

“compelled” by the structure of AEDPA, which conveyed “Congress’ intent to channel

28

3

1

prisoners’ claims first to the state courts.” Id. at 182-83. It further held that “evidence

2

introduced in federal court has no bearing on § 2254(d)(1) review” and that “[i]f a claim

3

has been adjudicated on the merits by a state court, a federal habeas petitioner must

4

overcome the limitation of § 2254(d)(1) on the record that was before the state court.” Id.

5
6
7

at 185. The Supreme Court noted that this construction did not render superfluous §
2254(e)(2), which sets limits on the availability of evidentiary hearings, as explained
above. Id. at 186-86.
Considering the Supreme Court’s decision in Pinholster, the Court finds that the

8
9

request for an evidentiary hearing is premature at this time. Petitioner’s SAP is comprised
of over 1100 pages, half of which are exhibits in support and the remainder being

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14

Petitioner’s claims and legal arguments. (Docket No. 35.) The Court’s initial review of
the main portions of Petitioner’s claims indicate that they have merit and warrant an
answer from Respondent. The Court will sua sponte consider whether a hearing is
warranted after the claims have been fully briefed, after a determination of whether review
is limited by § 2254(d)(1) for each claim.

15

With respect to Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel, he filed his first

16

motion at the outset of this action. (Docket No. 7.) The motion was denied. (Docket No.

17

22 at 3-4.) Petitioner is again advised that the Sixth Amendment’s right to counsel does

18

not apply in habeas corpus actions. See Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728 (9th

19

Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 867 (1986). Unless an evidentiary hearing is required, the

20

decision to appoint counsel is within the discretion of the district court. See Id. at 728;

21

Bashor v. Risley, 730 F.2d 1228, 1234 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 838 (1984). As

22

stated above, an evidentiary hearing will not be ordered at this time, and there are no

23

exceptional circumstances to warrant appointment of counsel. Accordingly, Petitioner’s

24

motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED without prejudice to the Court’s sua sponte

25

reconsideration should the Court later find an evidentiary hearing necessary following

26

consideration of the merits of Petitioner’s claims.

27

///

28

4

CONCLUSION

1
2

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown,

3

1.

The Clerk shall serve by mail a copy of this order and the second amended

4

petition and all attachments thereto, (Docket No. 35), on Respondent and Respondent’s

5

attorney, the Attorney General of the State of California. The Clerk also shall serve a copy

6

of this order on Petitioner.

7

2.

Respondent shall file with the court and serve on Petitioner, within ninety

8

(90) days of the issuance of this order, an answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of

9

the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus
should not be issued. Respondent shall file with the answer and serve on Petitioner a copy

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

of all portions of the state trial record that have been transcribed previously and that are

12

relevant to a determination of the issues presented by the petition.

13

If Petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he shall do so by filing a traverse with

14

the Court and serving it on Respondent within thirty (30) days of his receipt of the

15

answer.

16

3.

Respondent may file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds in lieu of an

17

answer, as set forth in the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing

18

Section 2254 Cases. If Respondent files such a motion, Petitioner shall file with the Court

19

and serve on Respondent an opposition or statement of non-opposition within twenty-

20

eight (28) days of receipt of the motion, and Respondent shall file with the court and serve

21

on Petitioner a reply within fourteen (14) days of receipt of any opposition.

22

4.

It is Petitioner’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Petitioner is reminded

23

that all communications with the Court must be served on Respondent by mailing a true

24

copy of the document to Respondent’s counsel. Petitioner must keep the Court and all

25

parties informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper captioned “Notice of

26

Change of Address.” He must comply with the Court’s orders in a timely fashion. Failure

27

to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to

28

5

1

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

3

Dated: _November 18, 2019_

________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

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

Order to Show Cause; Denying Motions
PRO-SE\BLF\HC.16\05301Garcia_osc

26
27
28

6