Garcia v. McDowell

Filing 86

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR DISCOVERY by Judge Beth Labson Freeman Denying 82 Motion. (tsh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/1/2022)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

Case 5:16-cv-05301-BLF Document 86 Filed 02/01/22 Page 1 of 6

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

ESEQUIEL “PAUL” GARCIA,
Petitioner,

12

14

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
DISCOVERY

v.

13

Case No. 16-05301 BLF (PR)

NEIL MCDOWELL, Warden,

15

Respondent.

16

(Docket No. 82)

17
18

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a writ of habeas corpus pursuant

19

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Court found the second amended petition (“SAP”), Dkt. No. 35,

20

stated cognizable claims, and ordered Respondent to show cause why the petition should

21

not be granted. Dkt. No. 37. Respondent has filed an answer along with exhibits in

22

support. Dkt. Nos. 56-59. Petitioner was granted four extensions of time to file a traverse,

23

Dkt. Nos. 63, 65, 71, 81, which he finally filed on July 2, 2021. Dkt. No. 83. The Court

24

also notes Petitioner’s notice of scanning errors and request to incorporate missing pages.

25

Dkt. No. 84. Before the Court is Petitioner’s motion for leave to conduct discovery for

26

potential Brady material. Dkt. No. 82.

27

///

28

///

Case 5:16-cv-05301-BLF Document 86 Filed 02/01/22 Page 2 of 6

BACKGROUND

1
2

According to the SAP, Petitioner was found guilty by a jury in Santa Clara County

3

Superior Court of first-degree murder and aiding and abetting special circumstance. SAP

4

at 1, 2. Petitioner was sentenced on May 10, 2012, to life without the possibility of parole.

5

Id. at 1.
Petitioner pursued a direct appeal as well as a concurrent petition for writ of habeas

6
7

corpus in the state courts without success. Id. at 3-6. Thereafter, Petitioner continued to

8

pursue various post judgment remedies in the state courts and with other entities. Id. at 7-

9

42.
On September 15, 2016, Petitioner filed a letter initiating this federal habeas action,

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

and five days later, a petition for writ of habeas corpus. Dkt. Nos. 1, 5. On January 20,

12

2017, the Court granted Petitioner’s motion for stay under Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269

13

(2005). Dkt. No. 22.

14

On January 16, 2019, the Court granted Petitioner’s motion to reopen the action,

15

and granted Petitioner leave to file a second amended petition. Dkt. No. 29. After two

16

extensions of time, Petitioner filed a second amended petition on June 16, 2019. Dkt. No.

17

35.

18

The Court found the SAP stated the following cognizable claims for federal habeas

19

relief: (1) his rights under the Confrontation Clause was violated when the trial court

20

admitted both oral and written testimonial statements from non-testifying co-defendant,

21

Miguel Chaldez, id. at 1; (2) ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to investigate and

22

other failings, id. at 84, 119; (3-I) prosecutorial misconduct based on misrepresentation

23

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

24

assistance of trial and appellate counsel for failure to investigate, id. at 223, 395-398; (4)

25

juror misconduct due to outside influences and related ineffective assistance of counsel

26

claim, Dkt. No. 35-7 at 1, 27; (5) prosecutorial misconduct based on improper cross-

27

examination, id. at 52-53; (6) ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to conduct

28
2

Case 5:16-cv-05301-BLF Document 86 Filed 02/01/22 Page 3 of 6

1

reasonable pre-trial investigation into Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendment violations, id. at

2

81-82; (7) his conviction was based on less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt of each

3

and every element of the charged crime, id. at 175; (8) his counsel had a conflict of interest

4

that materially compromised the defense, id. at 195; (9) he was denied his right to retain

5

counsel of his choice, id. at 244; and (10) cumulative error, id. at 263. Dkt. No. 37 at 2.
The Court notes that previously, Petitioner filed a motion to stay this habeas action

6
7

a second time due to a pending hearing in state court for a Brady1/Pitchess motion for

8

discovery. Dkt. No. 72 at 3-4. The Court denied the motion, finding Petitioner was not

9

entitled to a second stay based on what amounted to nothing more than a fishing
expedition for a Brady claim, which was wholly dependent on whether the trial court

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

granted his motion. Dkt. No. 81 at 4-5. It appears that Petitioner was not successful

12

because he appealed the matter to the state appellate court. Dkt. No. 82 at 4, fn. 7. While

13

that matter was pending, Petitioner filed the instant motion for discovery, attempting to

14

obtain the potential Brady material through this action.

15

DISCUSSION

16
17

A.

Motion for Discovery
A habeas petitioner, unlike the usual civil litigant in federal court, is not entitled to

18
19

discovery as a matter of ordinary course. See Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899, 904 (1997).

20

However, Rule 6(a) of the Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. foll. §

21

2254, provides that a “judge may, for good cause, authorize a party to conduct discovery

22

under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and may limit the extent of discovery.” Before

23

deciding whether a petitioner is entitled to discovery under Rule 6(a) the court must first

24

identify the essential elements of the underlying claim. See Bracy, 520 U.S. at 904

25

(difficulties of proof aside, petitioner’s allegation of judicial bias, if proved, would violate

26
27

1

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).

28
3

Case 5:16-cv-05301-BLF Document 86 Filed 02/01/22 Page 4 of 6

1

due process clause). The court must then determine whether the petitioner has shown

2

“good cause” for appropriate discovery to prove his claim. See id.
Good cause for discovery under Rule 6(a) is shown “‘where specific allegations

3
4

before the court show reason to believe that the petitioner may, if the facts are fully

5

developed, be able to demonstrate that he is… entitled to relief….’” Id. at 908-09 (quoting

6

Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286, 299 (1969)); Pham v. Terhune, 400 F.3d 740, 743 (9th Cir.

7

2005).1 For example, in Bracy, the Supreme Court found that the petitioner established

8

good cause for discovery where he provided specific allegations lending support to his

9

claim that the trial judge was actually biased in his case. 520 U.S. at 909; see also Pham,
400 F.3d at 743 (good cause when petitioner contended that lab notes might show a

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

mistake which would be exculpatory); McDaniel v. U.S. Dist. Ct. (Jones), 127 F.3d 886,

12

888 (9th Cir. 1997) (good cause for discovery found where petitioner’s claims did not

13

appear purely speculative or without any basis in record, each claim included factual

14

allegations and statement of exhaustion, and materials sought through discovery were not

15

available from petitioner’s appellate counsel, who had destroyed entire file); Jones v.

16

Wood, 114 F.3d 1002, 1009-10 (9th Cir. 1997) (good cause found where petitioner

17

identified specific material he needed to argue effectively that trial lawyer had rendered

18

ineffective assistance, particularly where there was never any hearing on ineffective

19

assistance claim at state court level).
Here, Petitioner’s motion for discovery involves evidence to support various Brady

20
21

claims. Dkt. No. 82. In Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), the Supreme Court held

22

that “the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request

23

violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment,

24

irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution.” Id. at 87. In sum, for a

25
26
27

1

The Ninth Circuit has also described this standard as being that discovery must be allowed
when it is “essential” for the petitioner to “develop fully” his or her underlying claim.
Pham, 400 F. 3d at 743 (quoting Jones v. Wood, 114 F.3d 1002, 1009 (9th Cir. 1997)).

28
4

Case 5:16-cv-05301-BLF Document 86 Filed 02/01/22 Page 5 of 6

1

Brady claim to succeed, petitioner must show: (1) that the evidence at issue is favorable to

2

the accused, either because it is exculpatory or impeaching; (2) that it was suppressed by

3

the prosecution, either willfully or inadvertently; and (3) that it was material (or, put

4

differently, that prejudice ensued).2 Banks v. Dretke, 540 U.S. 668, 691 (2004); Strickler

5

v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263, 281-82 (1999). Evidence is material if “there is a reasonable

6

probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the

7

proceeding would have been different.” Cone v. Bell, 556 U.S. 449, 469-70 (2009). The

8

Supreme Court has since made clear that the duty to disclose such evidence applies even

9

when there has been no request by the accused, United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 107
(1976), and that the duty encompasses impeachment evidence as well as exculpatory

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

evidence, United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 676 (1985).
The Court finds that Petitioner has failed to show good cause for discovery under

12
13

Rule 6(a) to support potential Brady claims. Petitioner is seeking the following: (1)

14

evidence to attack the credibility of peace officers who were involved in the investigation

15

into his crimes, including their criminal records and personnel files, Dkt. No. 82 at 4-5, 7-

16

8; (2) evidence that a prosecution witness had a bipolar disorder, id. at 10-11; (3) the

17

interrogation recording of another witness; and (4) evidence of “drug dealing by Chaidez

18

Family,” id. at 13-14. Petitioner relies solely on his assertion that he requested this

19

evidence and that the prosecution was unresponsive and ignored his requests. Id. at 24-25.

20

But this argument only satisfies the second Brady factor. See Banks, 540 U.S. at 691.

21

Even if it is shown that the prosecution suppressed the discovery at issue, Petitioner fails to

22

explain how the specific Brady evidence would have been favorable to his case and that

23

the result of the proceeding would have been different had the evidence been disclosed to

24

the defense. Id. For example, Petitioner seeks personnel files of the police officers

25

involved in his case but fails to explain how the information contained therein would have

26
27

2

For the purpose of Brady, the terms “material” and “prejudicial” have the same meaning.
United States v. Kohring, 637 F.3d 895, 902 n.1 (9th Cir. 2011).

28
5

Case 5:16-cv-05301-BLF Document 86 Filed 02/01/22 Page 6 of 6

1

any effect on his trial. As Respondent pointed out in opposition Petitioner’s motion for a

2

second stay, the testimony of these officers was minimal to none at trial, with two of the

3

officers testifying to the authenticity of cell phone and computer records submitted at trial.

4

Dkt. No. 75 at 4-5. With respect to the other potential Brady material, Petitioner also fails

5

to explain how such evidence was favorable to him, either because it was exculpatory or

6

impeaching, and how the result of the proceedings would have been different had this

7

evidence been disclosed. Without such specific allegations, the Court is not persuaded that

8

Petitioner may be able to demonstrate that he is entitled to relief if the facts are fully

9

developed through discovery. See Bracy, 520 U.S. at 908-09. Accordingly, the Court
finds Petitioner has not shown “good cause” for discovery to prove a Brady claim. Id. at

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

904. His motion for discovery is therefore DENIED.

12

CONCLUSION

13
14
15

For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner’s motion for discovery is DENIED. Dkt. No.
82. This matter is deemed submitted.

16

This order terminates Docket No. 82.

17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18

Dated: __February 1, 2022__

________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Order Denying Motion for Discovery
P:\PRO-SE\BLF\HC.16\05301Garcia_deny-disc.docx

26
27
28
6