Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06431/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06431-11/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRIAN ELLIS PORTER, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

DERRAL ADAMS, WARDEN, )

)

Respondent. )

)

___________________________________ )

CV F 03-6431 WMW HC

ORDER REQUIRING

FURTHER BRIEFING RE

ACTUAL INNOCENCE 

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2254. This case proceeds on the amended petition filed

August 3, 2006.

On August 3, 2006, Petitioner filed his amended petition, realleging his original three

claims as grounds one, two and seven, and asserting six newly exhausted claims. The newly

exhausted claims are as follows: (3) Section 209, the California aggravated kidnaping law, is

Case 1:03-cv-06431-WMW Document 76 Filed 08/28/07 Page 1 of 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 2

unconstitutionally vague, on its face and as applied, in violaton of the Fourteenth

Amendment’s due process clause; (4) Petitioner is actually innocent of the crimes for which

he is convicted and imprisoned in violation of the United States Constitution; (5) Section

209, as applied to Petitioner, violated the United States and California constitutional bans on

cruel and unusual punishment; (6) the evidence was insufficient , under the federal

Constitution, to establish the crimes of extortion charged in counts one and six of the

charging information; (8) ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth and

Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution; (10) in effective assistance of

appellate counsel in violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States

Constitution. 

On December 13, 2006, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss claims three through

six and eight through ten of the amended petition, the new claims, on the ground that the

claims are untimely in violation of 28 U.S.C. Section 2244(d). Respondent argues that

Petitioner is not entitled to either statutory or equitable tolling, and that the claims are not

entitled to relation back principles. On March 19, 2007, Petitioner filed three documents: 1)

an opposition to the motion to dismiss; 2) a second opposition to the motion to dismiss; and

3) a motion for discovery, evidentiary hearings, depositions, and appointment of counsel and

an investigator. 

In his second opposition to the motion to dismiss, Petitioner contends that even if the

court concludes that tolling or relationback is unwarranted, he is entitled to have his newly

exhausted claims heard under the actual innocence gateway established in Schlup v. Delo,

513 U.S. 298 (1995). Petitioner makes the same argument in his motion for discovery,

evidentiary hearings, depositions, and appointment of counsel and an investigator. On March

22, 2007, Respondent filed a response to this motion, in which he simply incorporates by

reference prior responses to Petitioner’s motions. Nowhere in those responses, however,

does Respondent address the application of the Schlup actual innocence gateway to

Case 1:03-cv-06431-WMW Document 76 Filed 08/28/07 Page 2 of 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 3

Petitioner’s claims.

In Majoy v. Roe, 296 F.3d 770 (9 Cir.2002), the Ninth Circuit remanded an

th

untimely federal petition to the district court for the court to determine if the petitioner met

the possible actual innocence gateway for an untimely petition. Id. at 776-77 & n.3. Under

the actual innocence gateway of Schlup v. Delo, a petitioner's procedurally barred claim may

be considered on the merits if his claim of actual innocence is sufficient to implicate a

fundamental miscarriage of justice. Majoy, 296 F.3d at 775-76; Carriger v. Stewart, 132

F.3d 463, 477 (9 Cir.1997) (en banc). The petitioner must present evidence to show that in th

light of all the evidence, including evidence not introduced at trial, it is more likely than not

that no reasonable juror would have convicted him. Schlup, 513 U.S. at 327; Majoy, 296

F.3d at 776; Sistrunk v. Aremenakis, 292 F.3d 669, 673, 677 (9 Cir.2002). “A petitioner th

need not show that he is ‘actually innocent’ of the crime he was convicted of committing;

instead, he must show that ‘a court cannot have confidence in the outcome of the trial.’” 

Majoy, 296 F.3d at 776 (quoting Schlup, 513 U.S. at 316 and Carriger, 132 F.3d at 478). 

The Ninth Circuit has explained that claiming one should be allowed to pass through the

Schlup gateway is “not itself a constitutional claim, but instead a gateway through which a

habeas petitioner must pass to have his otherwise barred constitutional claim considered on

the merits.” Majoy, 296 F.3d at 778 n.1 (quoting Schlup, 513 U.S. at 315). In Schlup, the

Supreme Court cautioned that to be credible, a claim of actual innocence requires the

“petitioner to support his allegations of constitutional error with new reliable evidence . . .

that was not presented at trial.” Schlup, 513 U.S. at 324; Majoy, 296 F.3d at 776.

In the present case, Petitioner seeks an evidentiary hearing to present the testimony of

himself, Angelique Williams and Kia Block. He argues that the testimony of these three

witness will provide an alibi, demonstrating that he could not have committed the crime of

which he was convicted. This testimony was not presented at trial, and Petitioner brings a

claim of ineffective assistance of counsel because of that fact.

Case 1:03-cv-06431-WMW Document 76 Filed 08/28/07 Page 3 of 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 4

The issue before the court is whether, in light of all the evidence, including evidence

not introduced at trial, it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have

convicted Petitioner. See Schlup, 513 U.S. at 327; Majoy, 296 F.3d at 776. Because he did

not do so previously, Respondent will be ordered to brief this issue. As court is requiring

Respondent to brief only one issue, Respondent will be given a limited amount of time to do

so.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1) Respondent shall file a supplemental reply brief, addressing whether Petitioner is

entitled to have his constitutional claims considered under the Schlup actual

innocence gateway;

2) Respondent shall file and serve his supplemental reply brief by 4:00 p.m. on Friday,

September 7, 2007. No extensions of time will be granted.IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 27, 2007 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06431-WMW Document 76 Filed 08/28/07 Page 4 of 4