Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_14-cv-08060/USCOURTS-azd-3_14-cv-08060-2/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

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Joel K. Barr,

Petitioner,

v. 

Charles Ryan, et al.,

Respondents.

No. CV-14-08060-PCT-GMS (ESW)

ORDER

The Court has reviewed Petitioner’s “Motion to Expand the Record (Eighth 

request)” (Doc. 112) and “Motion to Expand the Record to Include the Attached 

Affidavit (Ninth request)” (Doc. 114). For the reasons set forth herein, the Motions will 

be denied. 

I. DISCUSSION

A. “Motion to Expand the Record (Eighth request)” (Doc. 112)

Petitioner has alleged throughout this proceeding that forensic computer analyst, 

Joann Kennedy (“Kennedy”), “installed” the images of child pornography found on the 

computer that Petitioner used.1

 To support this allegation, Petitioner emphasizes that “all 

242 times associated with the 121 illegal images . . . are recorded at times that end in 

 

1 Petitioner’s “Motion to Expand the Record (Eighth request)” (Doc. 112 at 3) 

references his “First Amended Petitioner’s Motion Requesting Discovery” (Doc. 13), 

which contains a detailed account of Petitioner’s reasons for asserting that Kennedy 

“installed” the images.

Case 3:14-cv-08060-GMS Document 121 Filed 12/22/16 Page 1 of 5
- 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

‘even numbered seconds, only.”2 (Doc. 13 at 2). According to Petitioner, this indicates

evidence tampering. Petitioner contends that “when [a computer’s BIOS] battery runs 

down, or is removed—then the computer is restricted to mark time in even numbered 

seconds, only.” (Id. at 5). Based on this contention, Petitioner asserts that Kennedy 

“removed the [computer’s] BIOS battery in order to place the 121 illegal images on the 

computer’s hard drive.” (Id. at 7). 

In his “Motion to Expand the Record (Eighth request)” (Doc. 112), Petitioner 

asserts that the computer is still in the possession of the Apache County Clerk of Court’s 

office. Petitioner asks the Court to turn on the computer, explaining that “[t]he Court,

itself, can see the proof of tampering by booting up the computer without its BIOS 

battery; and then, again, with a new BIOS battery installed.” (Id. at 4). Petitioner 

concludes that if the computer is booted up without a battery, “the Court will see that the 

computer marks time, then utilizing ‘even’ numbered seconds, exclusively.” (Id.). 

Petitioner further states that “[t]urning on and booting up the computer, is such a simple 

task that anyone at the Apache County Superior Court’s clerk’s office can do it on behalf 

of this Court, at this Court’s request via a telephone call.” (Id.). Petitioner’s request to 

turn on the computer will be denied.

First, the Court does not conduct discovery on behalf of parties. See Bias v.

Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1219 (9th Cir. 2007) (“A district court lacks the power to act

as a party’s lawyer, even for pro se litigants.”); Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225, 231 (2004)

(federal “judges have no obligation to act as counsel or paralegal to pro se litigants”) 

(italics in original); Barnes v. United States, 241 F.2d 252 (9th Cir.

1956) (noting pro se litigant does not have rights that a represented litigant does not 

have); see also United States v. Pinkey, 548 F.2d 305 (10th Cir. 1977) (noting the court is 

not obligated to assist or guide the pro se litigant). 

 

2 The Encase Examination Report detailing the charged images provides a “file created” date and time and a “last written” date and time. (Doc. 35-2 at 139-55). Some 

files contain multiple charged images. 

Case 3:14-cv-08060-GMS Document 121 Filed 12/22/16 Page 2 of 5
- 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

Second, courts do not allow habeas petitioners “to use federal discovery for 

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

Northern Dist. Of California, 98 F.3d 1102, 1106 (9th Cir. 1996). Aside from his own 

assertions, Petitioner has not produced any evidence to support his contention that 

because the charged images were created and last written at times that end only in evennumbered seconds, the images must have been “installed” by Kennedy while the 

computer’s “BIOS battery” was removed.3

 (Doc. 13 at 2, 5). Petitioner’s speculative 

theory does not establish the necessary “good cause” to permit discovery. See Kemp v. 

Ryan, 638 F.3d 1245, 1260 (9th Cir. 2011) (habeas petitioner’s “claim of a jail-wide 

policy of eliciting incriminating statements has many of the indicia of an improper 

‘fishing expedition,’ and the desire to engage in such an expedition cannot supply ‘good

cause’ sufficient to justify discovery”); Stanford v. Parker, 266 F.3d 442, 460 (6th Cir

.2001) (“Even in a death penalty case, ‘bald assertions and conclusory allegations do not 

provide sufficient ground to warrant requiring the state to respond to discovery or to 

require an evidentiary hearing.’”) (citation omitted), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 831 (2002).

Moreover, any evidence of the effect of removing the “BIOS battery” from the seized 

computer would not establish that Kennedy “installed” the child pornography images.

In his Motion (Doc. 112 at 4), Petitioner alternatively states that even if the Court 

 3 The Court takes judicial notice of the existence of a report from the National 

Institute of Standards and Technology (“NIST”), which contains an explanation of how a 

Personal Computer keeps time that differs from Petitioner’s explanation. Michael 

Lombardi, Computer Time Synchronization, NAT’L INST. OF STANDARDS AND TECH., at 

1, http://tf.nist.gov/service/pdf/computertime.pdf. (last visited December 20, 2016); see 

United States v. 14.02 Acres of Land More or Less in Fresno Cty., 547 F.3d 943, 955 (9th

Cir. 2008) (“Judicial notice is appropriate for records and ‘reports of administrative bodies’”) (citation omitted); Gerritsen v. Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc., 112 

F.Supp.3d 1011, 1033 (C.D. Cal. 2015) (courts can take judicial notice of “‘[p]ublic records and government documents available from reliable sources on the Internet,’ such 

as websites run by governmental agencies”) (citation omitted).

The NIST report is not cited to establish how the seized computer keeps time. The report is cited to indicate the existence of another explanation of how computers keep time, thereby underscoring the Court’s conclusion that Petitioner’s assertions regarding 

how the seized computer keeps time are conjecture. See Quan v. Gonzales, 428 F.3d 883, 

888 n. 5 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing results from internet searches on banking hours in China to underscore the conclusion that an Immigration Judge’s finding that an asylum 

petitioner provided “implausible testimony that the banks were open on Sunday” could 

“only be based upon conjecture and speculation”).

Case 3:14-cv-08060-GMS Document 121 Filed 12/22/16 Page 3 of 5
- 4 -

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

denies his request to boot up the computer, the Court should grant his “Motion to Expand 

the Record to include the seized computer in order to preserve its option to do so . . . .” 

Yet Petitioner has failed to show that the computer has exculpatory value.

4

 See Orbe v. 

True, 201 F.Supp.2d 671, 677 (E.D. Va. 2002) (courts should decline to 

enter orders directing preservation of evidence where the requesting party fails to 

describe with reasonable particularity the evidence to be preserved, its materiality or 

exculpatory potential, and the identity of the custodian of such evidence). Further, 

Petitioner’s request is moot in light of Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 28.1.

For the above reasons, Petitioner’s Motion (Doc. 112) is denied.

B. “Motion to Expand the Record (Ninth request)” (Doc. 114)

Petitioner seeks to expand the record to include the “Affidavit of Joel K. Barr” that 

is attached to his October 20, 2016 Motion (Doc. 114). In his affidavit, Petitioner avers 

that he was at a friend’s birthday party on December 29, 2002 and could not have 

committed child molestation or accessed child pornography on that date. (Id. at 3-6). 

The statements in Petitioner’s affidavit duplicate Petitioner’s statements made in his “Ex 

Parté Motion for Appointment of Counsel” (Doc. 56) and his Reply (Doc. 107). 

Moreover, in his Reply, Petitioner explains that he presented an alibi for December 29, 

2002 at trial and contends that the jury accepted that alibi. Petitioner states that the

jury did not reject my claim of actual innocence of any crime 

allegedly committed ON December 29, 2002, or the 

testimony of my five alibi witnesses. Instead, the jury 

unreasonably determined the facts, in light of the evidence 

 

4 To the extent Petitioner is requesting that the Court order the state court to 

relinquish control and custody of the computer, there may be an issue as to the Court’s authority to do so. “A long-standing common-law rule prohibits a court, whether state or 

federal, from assuming in rem jurisdiction over a res that is already under the in rem 

jurisdiction of another court.” United States v. Kama, 394 F.3d 1236, 1240 (9th Cir. 

2005) (Ferguson, J., concurring) (emphasis in original) (citing Penn Gen. Cas. Co. v. Pa., 294 U.S. 189, 195 (1935) (“[T]he court first assuming jurisdiction over the property may 

maintain and exercise that jurisdiction to the exclusion of the other.”). “When federal 

authorities seek to gain control over a res already in the control of a state court, the proper procedure is to seek [a] turnover order from that court.” In re Seizure of Approximately 

28 Grams of Marijuana, 278 F.Supp.2d 1097, 1107 (N.D.Cal. 2003) (citation omitted). Because Petitioner has not shown that the computer has exculpatory value, the Court does not address this potential issue.

Case 3:14-cv-08060-GMS Document 121 Filed 12/22/16 Page 4 of 5
- 5 - 

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 

presented at trial by Victoria Roderick, to include other 

ambiguous dates “about” December 29, 2002, for which I had 

not mentioned (or needed to mention) date-specific alibis. 

(Doc. 107 at 86) (emphasis in original). For the reasons explained in a forthcoming 

Report and Recommendation, Petitioner’s asserted alibi does not establish factual 

innocence and does not support Petitioner’s claim that his procedurally defaulted habeas 

claims should be excused based on the actual innocence exception. Petitioner’s Motion 

(Doc. 114) is denied. 

II. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, 

IT IS ORDERED denying Petitioner’s “Motion to Expand the Record (Eighth 

request)” (Doc. 112) . 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Petitioner’s “Motion to Expand the 

Record (Ninth request)” (Doc. 114). 

Dated this 22nd day of December, 2016. 

Case 3:14-cv-08060-GMS Document 121 Filed 12/22/16 Page 5 of 5