Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05124/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05124-8/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IVAN KILGORE,

Petitioner,

 vs.

J. WALKER, Acting Warden,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 07-5124 SI (PR)

ORDER DENYING MOTION

TO AMEND FINDINGS;

DENYING MOTION TO

VACATE JUDGMENT 

(Docket Nos. 31 & 32) 

INTRODUCTION

The Court denied the petition for writ of habeas corpus filed in the above-titled action,

and entered judgment in favor of Respondent in December 2009. The Court also declined

to issue a certificate of appealability. Petitioner has filed a notice of appeal. 

Petitioner now moves to amend the findings of the Court (Docket No. 31), for leave

of Court to file a motion to vacate, and to vacate the judgment (Docket No. 32). For the

reasons stated herein, Petitioner’s motions (Docket Nos. 31 & 32) are DENIED. 

MOTION TO AMEND FINDINGS

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(b), Petitioner proposes eight

amendments to the Court’s findings in its order denying the petition for writ of habeas

corpus. 

Case 3:07-cv-05124-SI Document 35 Filed 01/21/10 Page 1 of 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

1. Prior Act Evidence

At trial, the prosecutor presented evidence that Petitioner had been convicted of

involuntary manslaughter in 1997 in Oklahoma, an incident unrelated to the charges

Petitioner faced in California. This Court stated that the “state appellate court affirmed the

trial court’s ruling, finding that Petitioner’s testimony in the Oklahoma case was admissible

pursuant to California Evidence Code § 1101(b) and under the doctrine of chances.” (Docket

No. 29 at 4.) 

Petitioner asserts that the Court was erroneous in stating that the trial court admitted

the evidence under section 1101(b). (Docket No. 31 at 2.) 

Petitioner’s motion on this point will be denied. As the above-quoted sentence

indicates, this Court did not assert that the trial court admitted the evidence under section

1101(b), but rather that the state appellate court found that the evidence was admissible under

that section of the Evidence Code. 

2. The Oklahoma Evidence 

Petitioner seeks to amend this Court’s findings regarding the facts of the Oklahoma

action because “the facts of the Oklahoma record which do not support these findings.”

(Docket No. 31 at 2.) 

Petitioner’s motion on this point will be denied. In sum, Petitioner’s contention is too

vague. Petitioner does not specify in what way the Court’s findings are not supported by the

record. Without a reasonably detailed articulation of how the Court’s findings are in error,

this Court must deny Petitioner’s motion.

3. Effectiveness of Appellate Counsel

Petitioner seeks to amend the Court’s findings regarding Petitioner’s claims that his

appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance. (Docket No. 31 at 3–4.) 

Petitioner’s motion on this point will be denied. This proposed amendment is a

reiteration of Petitioner’s ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim raised in the

Case 3:07-cv-05124-SI Document 35 Filed 01/21/10 Page 2 of 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

3

petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Court denied such claim in its previous order.

Petitioner provides no basis for the Court to modify its determination that such claim is

without merit. 

4. Effectiveness of Trial Counsel 

Petitioner seeks to amend the Court’s findings regarding Petitioner’s claims that his

trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance. (Docket No. 31 at 3.) 

Petitioner’s motion on this point will be denied. This proposed amendment is a

reiteration of Petitioner’s ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim raised in the petition

for writ of habeas corpus. The Court denied such claim in its previous order. Petitioner

provides no basis for the Court to modify its determination that such claim is without merit.

5. Exclusion of Character Evidence of Victim

Petitioner seeks to amend the Court’s findings regarding Petitioner’s claim that the

trial court violated his due process rights when it excluded evidence that the victim was a

drug dealer. (Docket No. 31 at 3.) 

Petitioner’s motion on this point will be denied. This proposed amendment is a

reiteration of an identical claim raised in the petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Court

denied such claim in its previous order. Petitioner provides no basis for the Court to modify

its determination that such claim is without merit. 

6. Questioning on Oklahoma Evidence

Petitioner seeks to amend the Court’s findings regarding defense witness Tomlinsonn

so that such findings comport with the trial transcript. (Docket No. 31 at 4.) 

Petitioner’s motion will be denied as to this point. A review of the trial transcript does

not indicate that any amendments are needed. 

 

Case 3:07-cv-05124-SI Document 35 Filed 01/21/10 Page 3 of 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

4

7. “Strong Evidence”

Petitioner seeks to amend the Court’s findings that there was strong evidence to

support Petitioner’s convictions. (Docket No. 31 at 4.) 

Petitioner’s motion on this point will be denied. This proposed amendment is a

reiteration of assertions raised in the petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Court denied

such assertions in its previous order. Petitioner provides no basis for the Court to modify its

determination that such assertions are without merit. 

8. Effectiveness of Trial Counsel Generally

Here, rather than proposing an amendment, Petitioner states that he “finds fault in all

factual determinations regarding his IAC claims.” (Docket No. 31 at 4.) 

Petitioner’s motion on this point will be denied. This is not a proposed amendment,

but rather a voiced disagreement with the Court’s determination. 

In sum, the Court, having found no reason to amend its findings, DENIES Petitioner’s

motion to amend (Docket No. 31). 

MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT

Petitioner moves for leave to file a motion to vacate judgment, and moves to vacate

judgment (Docket No. 32) under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Such motions are

based on the alleged factual error regarding the admission of the Oklahoma evidence

pursuant to section 1101(b), which the Court addressed above. 

The Court, having found no error in its factual determination, DENIES Petitioner’s

motion to vacate (Docket No. 32). As it is not necessary to file for leave to file such a

motion, Petitioner’s request for leave to file a motion to vacate is dismissed as unnecessary.

//

//

//

Case 3:07-cv-05124-SI Document 35 Filed 01/21/10 Page 4 of 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

5

CONCLUSION

For the above reasons, Petitioner’s motion to amend the findings (Docket No. 31),

and to vacate the judgment (Docket No. 32) are DENIED. Petitioner’s motion to file for

leave to file a motion to vacate the judgment (Docket No. 32) is dismissed as unnecessary.

This order terminates Docket Nos. 31 and 32. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 21, 2010 

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-05124-SI Document 35 Filed 01/21/10 Page 5 of 5