Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01364/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01364-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2254. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(c)(1), the parties have 

consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge 

to conduct all further proceedings in the case, including the entry 

of final judgment, by manifesting their consent in writings signed 

by the parties or their representatives and filed by Petitioner on 

August 31, 2012, and on behalf of Respondent on February 12, 2013.

Pending before the Court is the Petitioner’s motion to submit 

to the Court in connection with the petition character references 

from immediate family members that Petitioner states were originally 

ESSIE PATRICK-BELL,

 Petitioner,

v.

RON DAVIS, Warden

Respondent.

Case No. 1:12-cv-01364-SKO

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION 

TO EXPAND THE RECORD BY SUBMITTING 

AN ADDENDUM TO THE FIRST AMENDED 

EPTITION PETITION (Doc. 24)

Case 1:12-cv-01364-SKO Document 25 Filed 06/14/13 Page 1 of 3
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

hand-delivered to the Court and were submitted with the original 

petition.

The original petition in this action was filed on August 21, 

2012. The Court dismissed three of Petitioner’s six claims with 

leave to amend, and Petitioner subsequently filed a first amended 

petition (FAP) on October 29, 2012. In the FAP, Petitioner 

challenges her conviction of voluntary manslaughter by plea bargain 

and raises issues concerning her sentencing. She seeks to have a 

middle term instead of an upper term imposed as her sentence. 

Respondent filed an answer to the FAP on February 11, 2013. 

Petitioner filed a traverse on March 19, 2013. On March 29, 2013, 

the Court granted Petitioner’s motion to add a page to the 

previously filed traverse but struck correspondence and related 

documents set forth in her motion. 

No opposition or notice of non-opposition was filed by 

Respondent to the motion to submit character references from her 

family which is presently pending before the Court. Petitioner 

wants the Court to review these letters, which Petitioner argues 

show that her parents and brother will support her on release if she 

receives a reduced sentence. (Doc. 24, 7.) However, the letters 

were filed long after the state proceedings concluded and long after 

the petition was filed in this action. Further, the Court’s review 

of the original petition does not reflect that the references, which 

were written long after the original petition was filed, were 

submitted with the original petition. 

Petitioner in effect seeks to expand the record in this 

proceeding. Rule 7 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the 

United States District Courts (Habeas Rules) permits a judge to 

Case 1:12-cv-01364-SKO Document 25 Filed 06/14/13 Page 2 of 3
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

direct the parties to expand the record by submitting additional 

materials relating to the petition. It is appropriate to expand the 

record to include materials not before a trial court where the 

purpose is to clarify the relevant facts and provide meaningful 

federal review of constitutional claims. Vasquez v. Hillery, 474 

U.S. 254, 258, 260 (1986). Relevant evidence is evidence that has 

any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be 

without the evidence where the fact is of consequence in determining 

the action. Fed. R. Evid. 401. 

Here, the issues raised in the petition relate to the guilty 

plea proceeding and the sentence imposed on Petitioner. The 

character references written by Petitioner’s family long after the 

state court proceedings concluded and the petition was filed were

not before the trial court and have not been shown to have a 

tendency to prove or disprove any fact that is material to the 

issues raised by Petitioner in the petition.

Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion to expand the record to 

include character references from her family is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 13, 2013 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

ie14hje

Case 1:12-cv-01364-SKO Document 25 Filed 06/14/13 Page 3 of 3