Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_98-cv-00784/USCOURTS-caed-2_98-cv-00784-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 535
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Death Penalty
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Ptn for Writ of H/C - Stay of Execution

---

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

These orders and filings concerning the same were just 1

recently brought to the undersigned’s attention. A procedure has been

established that will result in earlier discovery of such filings.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GARY DALE HINES, ) 2:98-cv-0784-GEB-EFB

)

Petitioner, ) DEATH PENALTY CASE

)

v. ) ORDER

)

EDDIE YLST, Acting Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

)

On November 15, 2005, a magistrate judge filed

recommendations (“November 15 recommendations”) that summary judgment

be entered against Petitioner on his penalty phase claims. Petitioner

filed objections to the November 15 recommendations on December 15,

2005, in which he indicated that the issues in the November 15

recommendations should not be reached before the district judge

reconsiders the magistrate judge’s Order filed October 19, 2004, 

(“October 19 Order”) which denied Petitioner’s requests to expand the

record.1

Case 2:98-cv-00784-TLN-JDP Document 311 Filed 11/13/06 Page 1 of 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

2

The October 19 Order denied Petitioner’s requests on both

procedural grounds and the merits. On November 3, 2004, Petitioner

filed a request for reconsideration of the October 19 Order. The

magistrate judge held Petitioner’s motion was procedurally defective

because Petitioner “failed to develop the factual basis of a claim in

State court proceedings.” (October 19 Order at 4.) The basis for

this conclusion is unclear. Respondent’s opposition brief filed

August 6, 2004, appears to concede that “Petitioner did make an effort

to develop facts [concerning certain of his record expansion requests]

while the matter was in state court and that the state court

proceedings ended before funds became available.” (Opp’n to

Petitioner’s Supplemental Mem. in Supp. of Req. to Expand the R. on

Penalty Phase Issues at 3.)

Further, the magistrate judge appears to have relied on the

wrong Ninth Circuit standard when denying Petitioner’s request to

expand the record with certain mitigating evidence that Petitioner

contends should have been presented at the penalty phase of his trial. 

Specifically, the magistrate judge stated:

The Ninth Circuit refuses to “impose a duty on

attorneys to require sufficient background

material on which an expert can base reliable

psychiatric conclusions, independent of any

request for information from an expert.” 

Hendricks v. Calderon, 70 F.3d 1032, 1038-39 (9th

Cir. 1995). Thus, trial counsel were not

ineffective in failing to provide background

material if [clinical psychologist Dr. Edward]

Grover never asked for it.

(October 19 Order at 9.) However, Hendricks concerned trial counsel’s

performance in the guilt phase, whereas the Ninth Circuit reveals in

Hovey v. Ayers, 458 F.3d 892 (9th Cir. 2006), trial counsel has a

different responsibility in the penalty phase:

Case 2:98-cv-00784-TLN-JDP Document 311 Filed 11/13/06 Page 2 of 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 This case was recently reassigned to a magistrate judge who 2

did not author either of the referenced orders.

3

A defense attorney in the sentencing phase of a

capital trial has a professional responsibility to

investigate and bring to the attention of mental

health experts who are examining his client . . .

facts that the experts do not request. . . .

Regardless of whether a defense expert requests

specific information relevant to a defendant's

background, it is defense counsel's duty to seek

out such evidence and bring it to the attention of

the experts.

458 F.3d at 925 (internal quotations omitted).

Since it is unclear whether the record should be expanded as

Petitioner requests, and because a purpose of referencing the case to

the magistrate judge is to obtain assistance on clarifying such

issues, the October 19 Order is reversed and this case is remanded to

the magistrate judge for further consideration of these issues and for

any appropriate proceedings. Further, since the November 15 2

recommendations should not have issued before Petitioner’s requests to

expand the record on penalty phase issues were decided, these

recommendations are deemed withdrawn.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 13, 2006

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:98-cv-00784-TLN-JDP Document 311 Filed 11/13/06 Page 3 of 3