Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01162/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01162-6/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN ANDREW SHEPHEARD, II, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

R. KIRKLAND, Warden, et al., )

)

Respondents. )

____________________________________)

1:05-cv-01162-AWI-TAG HC 

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

MOTION FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING

(Doc. 19)

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

MOTION FOR DISCOVERY

(Doc . 21)

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On May 7, 2007, Petitioner filed a motion for evidentiary hearing. (Doc. 19). On June 6,

2007, Petitioner filed a motion for discovery. (Doc. 21). 

DISCUSSION

A. Evidentiary Hearing

Rule 8(a) provides that where a petition is not dismissed at a previous stage in the

proceeding, the judge, after the answer and transcripts and record of the state court proceedings are

filed, shall, upon review of those proceedings, determine whether an evidentiary hearing is required. 

The purpose of an evidentiary hearing is to resolve the merits of a factual dispute. An evidentiary

hearing on a claim is required where it is clear from the petition that: (1) the allegations, if

established, would entitle the petitioner to relief; and (2) the state court trier of fact has not reliably

found the relevant facts. See Hendricks v. Vasquez, 974 F.2d 1099, 1103 (9 Cir.1992). As the th

function of an evidentiary hearing is to try issues of fact, Townsend v. Swain 372 U.S. 293, 309

Case 1:05-cv-01162-AWI -JMD Document 26 Filed 02/13/08 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

(1963)(overruled in part by Keeney v. Tamayo-Reyes, 504 U.S. 1 (1993)), such a hearing is

unnecessary when only issues of law are raised. Id. 

Petitioner contends that he is a laymen without legal experience or knowledge of the law, that

he is unable to obtain counsel, and that the issues in this case are complex and “it is difficult for

Petitioner to understand how to further proceed to press Petitioner’s claims to a final resolution.” 

(Doc. 19, p. 1). Petitioner requests an evidentiary hearing to orally argue his case. (Id. at p. 2). 

Respondent filed his response to the petition on June 18, 2007 (Doc. 22), and Petitioner filed

his traverse on July 16, 2007. (Doc. 25). A review of those filings indicates to the Court that the

issues raised in the petition are questions of law and that no questions of fact are involved. 

Moreover, although Petitioner certainly disagrees with the state courts’ adjudication of the legal

issues in the instant petition, it does not appear to the Court that Petitioner has made any suggestion

that the state court has not reliably found the relevant facts underlying those legal issues. Thus, at

this juncture, the Court does not see the need for an evidentiary hearing. 

However, the case is presently on the Court’s list of active cases awaiting a decision on the

merits. When the Court finally considers the merits of this petition, the Court will again consider sua

sponte the need for an evidentiary hearing and will order one should it find that one is necessary. 

Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion for an evidentiary hearing (Doc. 19) will be denied. 

B. Discovery

Ground One of the petition alleges, inter alia, that the prosecution withheld exculpatory

evidence during the trial, i.e., an audiotape of a police interview with a witness. (Doc. 1, p. 8). 

Petitioner alleges that the audiotape, if timely disclosed, would have provided his attorney with

valuable impeachment evidence against the prosecution’s “key witness.” (Id.). The trial court

rejected a post-trial motion on this issue, and the California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District

(“5 DCA”) rejected the contention in its unpublished decision affirming Petitioner’s conviction and th

sentence. (Doc. 22, p. 9). The 5 DCA concluded that while the evidence had been “readily

th

available” to the prosecution, it was not material, i.e., Petitioner had failed to establish that the nondisclosed evidence would have “put the whole case in such a different light as to undermine

confidence in the verdict.” (Id.). 

Case 1:05-cv-01162-AWI -JMD Document 26 Filed 02/13/08 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 now moves for discovery of the audiotape itself, contending that he cannot

properly prepare his traverse without comparing the actual audiotape to the transcript of the

audiotape. (Doc. 21, p. 2). 

The writ of habeas corpus is not a proceeding in the original criminal prosecution but an

independent civil suit.” Riddle v. Dyche, 262 U.S. 333, 335-336 (1923); see e.g. Keeney v. TamayoReyes, 504 U.S. 1, 14 (1992) (O’Connor, J., dissenting). A habeas proceeding does not proceed to

“trial” and unlike other civil litigation, a habeas corpus petitioner is not entitled to broad discovery. 

Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899, 904 (1997); Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286, 295 (1969). 

Although discovery is available pursuant to Rule 6, it is only granted at the Court’s

discretion, and upon a showing of good cause. Bracy, 520 U.S. at 904; McDaniel v. United States

Dist. Court (Jones), 127 F.3d 886, 888 (9th Cir. 1997); Jones v. Wood, 114 F.3d 1002, 1009 (9th

Cir. 1997); Rule 6(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254. The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule

6 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases emphasize that Rule 6 was not intended to extend to

habeas petitioners, as a matter of right, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure’s broad discovery

provisions. Rule 6, Advisory Committee Notes (quoting Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286, 295

(1969)). 

Unlike other civil litigation, a habeas corpus petitioner is not entitled to broad discovery. 

Bracy, 520 U.S. at 904; Harris, 394 U.S. at 295. A petitioner does not have the right to inquire into

all matters which are relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action, whether

admissible at trial or not. Harris, 394 U.S. at 297. “Such a broad-ranging preliminary inquiry is

neither necessary nor appropriate in the context of a habeas corpus proceeding.” Id. Elaborate

discovery procedures would cause substantial delay to prisoners and place a heavy burden upon

courts, prison officials, prosecutors, and police. Id. Nevertheless, “where specific allegations before

the court show reason to believe that the petitioner may, if the facts are fully developed, be able to

demonstrate that he is confined illegally and is therefore entitled to relief, it is the duty of the court to

provide the necessary facilities and procedures for an adequate inquiry.” Id. at 300.

Here, Petitioner asserts that his need for a copy of the audiotape itself is because of

discrepancies between the written transcript and what was actually said on the tape. (Doc. 21, p. 4).

///

Case 1:05-cv-01162-AWI -JMD Document 26 Filed 02/13/08 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

However, neither the state courts nor Respondent have noted such purported discrepancies and

Petitioner, although he apparently has heard the tape along with his trial attorney, provides no

specific details on how the transcript differs from the actual audiotape in any manner that would have

an impact of the legal issues now before the Court. Thus, Petitioner’s discovery motion fails to make

the requisite showing of a need to have the actual tape itself.

Moreover, at this time, the Court’s function is to review the state court’s adjudication of this

issue, i.e., denying Petitioner’s contention that the prosecution’s withholding of the tape was

prejudicial or that the tape itself was material, was contrary to or an unreasonable application of

clearly established federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1)). Since the 5 DCA’s opinion expressly

th

references the clearly established federal law regarding the withholding of exculpatory evidence, the

Court narrowly views its role at this point as one of law, and not one that requires any factual

determinations regarding the uniformity of the transcript and the audiotape itself. This undercuts

Petitioner’s claim that he needs the audiotape in order to prepare the legal arguments in his traverse.

Finally, on July 16, 2007, Petitioner filed a 30- page traverse that contained extensive

arguments regarding the prosecution’s withholding of the audiotape and its purported impact on the

outcome of the case. (Doc. 25, pp. 3-12). Therefore, contrary to Petitioner’s assertions, it does not

appear that his lack of access to the actual audiotape resulted in any hindrance to Petitioner in the

filing of his traverse and the presentation of his arguments supporting his contentions on this issue.

For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner’s motion for an evidentiary hearing (Doc. 19) will be denied. 

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS as follows:

1. Petitioner’s motion for an evidentiary hearing (Doc. 19), is DENIED; and 

2. Petitioner’s motion for discovery (Doc. 21), is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 13, 2008 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:05-cv-01162-AWI -JMD Document 26 Filed 02/13/08 Page 4 of 4