Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-00811/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-00811-4/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

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FREDERICK LEE RAY,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-08-0811 JAM DAD P

vs.

MIKE KNOWLES, 

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with an application for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner challenges the decision of the California

Board of Parole Hearings to deny him parole at a 2006 parole consideration hearing. On October

21, 2009 and December 16, 2009, petitioner filed requests to expand the record before the court

to include the transcript of a subsequent parole consideration hearing held on July 16, 2009, at

which petitioner was also found unsuitable for parole. Petitioner has attached the 2009 hearing

transcript to his December 16, 2009 request to expand the record and requests that the court

consider this document for the purpose of “showing his parole eligibility status has not changed

since his previous hearing lodged with this court.” (December 16, 2009 Motion for Expansion of

the Record at 1.)

/////

Case 2:08-cv-00811-JAM-DAD Document 20 Filed 01/21/10 Page 1 of 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

2

Rule 7 of the Rules Governing § 2254 cases allows the district court to expand the

record without holding an evidentiary hearing. Cooper-Smith v. Palmateer, 397 F.3d 1236, 1241

(9th Cir. 2005) (citing 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254, Rule 7). However, before the record may be

supplemented with new evidence, a petitioner must meet the standards set forth in 28 U.S.C. §

2254(e) for the conducting of an evidentiary hearing. Id. Under this statutory scheme, a district

court presented with a request for an evidentiary hearing must first determine whether a factual

basis exists in the record to support a petitioner’s claims and, if not, whether an evidentiary

hearing “might be appropriate.” Baja v. Ducharme, 187 F.3d 1075, 1078 (9th Cir. 1999). See

also Earp v. Ornoski, 431 F.3d 1158, 1166 (9th Cir. 2005); Insyxiengmay v. Morgan, 403 F.3d

657, 669-70 (9th Cir. 2005). Expansion of the record in this case to include the transcript of

petitioner’s subsequent 2009 parole consideration hearing is not necessary or appropriate. The

events that transpired at petitioner’s 2009 parole consideration hearing have no bearing on

petitioner’s claim in the instant petition that the Board of Parole Hearings violated his right to

due process by finding him unsuitable for parole in 2006. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s October 21, 2009 

(Doc. No. 18) and December 16, 2009 (Doc. No. 19) requests to expand the record are denied.

DATED: January 20, 2010.

DAD:8

ray811.exp

Case 2:08-cv-00811-JAM-DAD Document 20 Filed 01/21/10 Page 2 of 2