WILLIAM LEONARD V. E.K.MCDANIEL

Filing 247

ORDER - Leonard's motion for evidentiary hearing (ECF No. 228 ) and renewed motion for discovery (ECF No. 229 ) are denied. See attached PDF Order for specifications. Signed by Chief Judge Miranda M. Du on 9/8/2022. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - HKL)

Case 2:99-cv-00360-MMD-DJA Document 247 Filed 09/08/22 Page 1 of 4

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5

***

6

WILLIAM BRYON LEONARD,

7

Petitioner,
v.

8
9

Case No. 2:99-cv-0360-MMD-DJA
ORDER

WILLIAM REUBART,1 et al.,

10

Respondents.

11
12

Before the Court in this habeas proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 are Petitioner

13

Leonard’s motion for evidentiary hearing (ECF No. 228) and renewed motion for

14

discovery (ECF No. 229). Both motions are opposed by the Respondents (ECF Nos. 239,

15

240), and Leonard has filed replies (ECF Nos. 245, 246). For reasons that follow, both

16

motions are denied.

17

I.

MOTION FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING

18

With his motion for evidentiary hearing, Leonard argues that, because the State

19

“largely does not dispute the facts underlying the remaining claims in [his] amended

20

petition,” he is entitled to habeas relief “based on the pleadings, without an evidentiary

21

hearing,” but “should this Court desire further evidentiary development on those claims,

22

… an evidentiary hearing is appropriate.” (ECF No. 228 at 2.) Leonard proposes to

23

present testimony from trial counsel demonstrating that counsel performed deficiently in

24

the guilt phase of Leonard’s trial (Claim One) and created a conflict of interest by agreeing

25

to represent both Leonard and Donald Hill, a key witness for Leonard’s defense (Claim

26
27
28

1William

Reubart is substituted for William Gittere as the warden of Ely State
Prison. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d).

Case 2:99-cv-00360-MMD-DJA Document 247 Filed 09/08/22 Page 2 of 4

1

Two). He also proposes to have trial counsel, as well as friends and family members,

2

testify in support of his claim that counsel performed deficiently in the penalty phase of

3

his trial (Claim Three).

4

Leonard contends that he meets the standards for an evidentiary hearing under

5

Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (2012), to the extent his claims are procedurally defaulted.

6

Martinez allows a habeas petitioner to cite the ineffective assistance of postconviction

7

counsel as cause for the procedural default of an ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel

8

claim. See Martinez, 566 U.S. at 9. Leonard further argues that an evidentiary hearing is

9

not precluded by 28 U.S.C. § 2245(e)(2) because any failure to develop the factual bases

10

for his claims can be attributed to the negligence of his post-conviction counsel. Section

11

2254(e)(2) applies only when a prisoner “has failed to develop the factual basis of a

12

claim.” The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted “fail” to mean that the prisoner must be

13

“at fault[,]” i.e., “bear[] responsibility”—for the undeveloped record in state court. Williams

14

v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 420, 432 (2000)

15

Leonard’s motion to dismiss predates the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Shinn

16

v. Ramirez, 142 S. Ct. 1718 (2022). In that case, the Court held that “a federal habeas

17

court may not conduct an evidentiary hearing or otherwise consider evidence beyond the

18

state-court record based on ineffective assistance of state postconviction counsel.”

19

Ramirez, 142 S.Ct. at 1734. The Court determined that Martinez did not disturb the long-

20

standing rule that a habeas petitioner bears the risk for his or her post-conviction

21

counsel’s deficiencies in developing the state court record. See id. at 1735-38. So, even

22

under Martinez, a federal court may not consider new evidence on the merits of a claim

23

unless the petitioner satisfies the stringent requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2). See

24

id.

25

Thus, Ramirez expressly rejects Leonard’s rationale for this Court holding an

26

evidentiary hearing. In his post-Ramirez reply, he suggests the Court could nonetheless

27

hold a hearing because Ramirez did not foreclose Martinez hearings to address whether

28
2

Case 2:99-cv-00360-MMD-DJA Document 247 Filed 09/08/22 Page 3 of 4

1

there is cause and prejudice to excuse a procedural default. While that may be, the Court

2

sees no need to hold a hearing for that purpose if the evidence adduced cannot be

3

considered in deciding the underlying habeas claim. Consequently, Leonard’s motion for

4

an evidentiary hearing is denied.

5

II.

RENEWED MOTION FOR DISCOVERY

6

Leonard characterizes his renewed motion for discovery as a request for the Court

7

to “permit narrow, limited discovery … allowing [him] a full and fair opportunity to litigate

8

his constitutional claims.” (ECF No. 229 at 9.) He asks the Court to order the State to

9

produce the prosecution’s case files for his state criminal proceeding and for two of

10

Donald Hill’s criminal proceedings. He also asks permission to depose Leonard Bascus,

11

a correctional officer for the Nevada Department of Corrections who witnessed the

12

incident for which Leonard was convicted.

13

Good cause for discovery in a habeas proceeding exists “’where specific

14

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

15

developed, be able to demonstrate that he is ... entitled to relief’.” Bracy v. Gramley, 520

16

U.S. 899, 908-909 (1997) (alteration in original) (quoting Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286,

17

300 (1969)). However, “courts should not allow [habeas petitioners] to use ... discovery

18

for fishing expeditions to investigate mere speculation.” Calderon v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the

19

N. Dist. of Cal. (Nicolaus), 98 F.3d 1102, 1106 (9th Cir. 1996). “To obtain discovery ... a

20

defendant must make a prima facie showing of materiality. Neither a general description

21

of the information sought nor conclusory allegations of materiality suffice; a defendant

22

must present facts which would tend to show that the Government is in possession of

23

information helpful to the defense.” United States v. Mandel, 914 F.2d 1215, 1219 (9th

24

Cir. 1990) (citations omitted).

25

While Leonard characterizes his discovery request as “narrow,” the Court views it

26

as quite broad and unfocused. In addition, Leonard has been seeking post-conviction

27
28
3

Case 2:99-cv-00360-MMD-DJA Document 247 Filed 09/08/22 Page 4 of 4

1

relief in state and federal court for thirty years. He fails to adequately account for the

2

lengthy delay in making his request for the production of the case files or the deposition.

3

The Court also questions whether it could consider any new evidence Leonard

4

might obtain with his requested discovery. See Shoop v. Twyford, 142 S. Ct. 2037, 2044

5

(2022) (“A court … must, consistent with AEDPA, determine at the outset whether the

6

new evidence sought could be lawfully considered.”) Even if review of some of his claims

7

is not subject to the restriction on new evidence imposed by Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S.

8

170 (2011),2 § 2254(e)(2) still restricts the discretion of federal habeas courts to consider

9

new evidence. See Pinholster, 563 U.S. at 186. Leonard does not demonstrate that he

10

can satisfy § 2254(e)(2).

11

Leonard contends that § 2254(e)(2) does not necessarily limit discovery, but the

12

Court disagrees. The Court in Shoop v. Twyford was clear that a federal court must

13

consider the limitations imposed by § 2254(e)(2) “before facilitating the development of

14

new evidence.” 142 S.Ct. at 2044. To do otherwise would “’prolong federal habeas

15

proceedings with no purpose,” which “in turn disturb[s] the State’s significant interest in

16

repose for concluded litigation.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

17
18
19
20
21
22

Concluding that Leonard has failed to establish good cause, the Court denies his
renewed motion for discovery.
III.

CONCLUSION

It is therefore ordered that Leonard’s motion for evidentiary hearing (ECF No. 228)
and renewed motion for discovery (ECF No. 229) are denied.
DATED THIS 8th Day of September 2022.

23
MIRANDA M. DU

24

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

25
26
27

2The

Court in Pinholster held that review under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) is limited to
the record before the state court that adjudicated the claim on the merits. See 563 U.S.
at 181.

28
4