Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-05296/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-05296-2/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)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MASAYUKI AGURO,

Petitioner, No. C 05-5296 PJH

v. ORDER RE: REQUEST FOR 

EXTENSION OF TIME

JEANNE WOODFORD, Director

of Corrections, et al.,

Respondents.

_______________________________/

Before the court is petitioner’s application for an extension of time to file a request

for an evidentiary hearing and/or a request to expand the habeas record. Habeas L.R.

2254-7 provides that a request for an evidentiary hearing shall be made within 15 days

from the filing of the traverse. Thus, the deadline for filing his request was May 14, 2007. 

In the declaration filed in conjunction with his application, petitioner has provided good

cause for a thirty-day extension of time based primarily on his counsel’s schedule. 

Accordingly, the request is GRANTED, and the request for an evidentiary hearing shall be

filed no later than June 13, 2007.

However, petitioner’s application for an extension of time to request expansion of the

record requires a different analysis. The local rule pertaining to evidentiary hearings does

not apply to expansion of the record and there is no other rule that permits the filing of a

request to expand the record at this late date. Typically, requests to expand the record are

filed prior to or during the course of briefing, which permits the parties to address issues

arising from the newly expanded record. This case, which was filed on December 21,

Case 4:05-cv-05296-PJH Document 29 Filed 05/17/07 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

AEDPA’s section 2254(e)(2), governing evidentiary hearings, provides:

If the applicant has failed to develop the factual basis of a claim in

state court proceedings, the court shall not hold an evidentiary

hearing unless the applicant shows that:

(A) the claim relies on–

(i) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral

review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable; or

(ii) a factual predicate that could not have been previously discovered

through the exercise of due diligence; and

(B) the facts underlying the claim would be sufficient to establish by clear and

convincing evidence that but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder

would have found the applicant guilty of the underlying offense.

2

2005, is already fully briefed. Expansion of the record now would very likely require

supplemental or re-briefing by the parties. Although petitioner has shown good cause to

extend the deadline for filing his request for an evidentiary hearing by thirty days, he has

not shown good cause for additional time to file a request to expand the record, a request

that should have been made before the completion of briefing. Although the court is

unaware of a particular rule or standard that governs exactly when a request to expand

must be made, the court finds that given the status of this case, at a minimum petitioner

must at least identify the evidence that he seeks to add and must establish that he acted

diligently. In other words he must show that the evidence with which he seeks to expand

the record could not have been discovered, even through the exercise of due diligence,

before his May 14, 2007 request for a further extension of time within which to request to

expand. 28 U.S.C. 2254(e)(2)(A)(ii). In order to succeed on his expansion request,

petitioner would ultimately have to make the showing required by the other provisions of

2254(e)(2). See Cooper-Smith v. Palmateer, 397 F.3d 1236, 1241-42 (9th Cir. 2005)

(concluding that requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2), which governs evidentiary

hearings, applies to requests to expand the record under Habeas Rule 7).1 

Accordingly, the court GRANTS petitioner’s application for an extension of time to

file his request for an evidentiary hearing pursuant to Habeas L.R. 2254-7, but DENIES

Case 4:05-cv-05296-PJH Document 29 Filed 05/17/07 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

without prejudice, petitioner’s application for an extension of time to file a request to expand

the record.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 17, 2007

______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:05-cv-05296-PJH Document 29 Filed 05/17/07 Page 3 of 3