Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-04611/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-04611-8/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)

---

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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HERMAN MICHAEL COVARRUBIAS,

Petitioner,

v.

ROBERT GOWER, Warden,

Respondent.

___________________________________/

No. C-13-4611 EMC (pr)

ORDER FOR SUPPLEMENTAL

BRIEFING

In this habeas action, Petitioner challenges his conviction of 19 counts of grand theft and

three counts of forgery, with sentence enhancements for excessive takings, based on his activities in

his mortgage brokerage business over the course of a couple of years. According to Petitioner, the

“essence of the charges” was that he “(1) misrepresented the terms and costs of loans to borrowers;

(2) misrepresented the borrowers’ income and employment information to the lenders; and (3)

forged three documents.” Docket # 1 at 38. The record for this case includes an 8,469-page

reporter’s transcript and a 5,813-page clerk’s transcript. There are eighteen cognizable claims in the

petition, only two of which were briefed by a lawyer in the state appellate court.

This Court has been hindered greatly in its efforts to adjudicate the merits of the claims by

the conclusory nature of the petition and traverse. Petitioner repeatedly makes assertions that are

deficient in that they are both generalities and made without citation to any particular page(s) of the

Case 3:13-cv-04611-EMC Document 47 Filed 05/13/15 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

 See, e.g., Docket # 1 at 5 (Claim 5 alleges false evidence was used, but identifies the

evidence only by reference to the number of the box in his garage where the documents were kept

and does not specifically describe the evidence or cite to any page in the record where that evidence

was introduced at trial); id. at 7 (Claim 9 alleges that the “prosecutor deliberately misled defense

about the theory of defendant[‘s] guilt violating Petitioner’s right to a fair trial,” but does not explain

what the misleading statements were or cite to any pages of the record supporting his assertion);

id. at 7 (Claim 10 alleges a variance in the charges because Petitioner “was convicted on the basis of

facts different than those facts on which charges were based” but does not explain what the

difference was or cite to any part of the record showing that variance); Docket # 45 (Traverse

Memorandum of Points And Authorities) at 13 (no citation to any page in the record or explanation

of the details in support of Petitioner’s statements that his attorney John Williams commented that

Petitioner suffered prejudice and the attorney “stated that he would have approached the trial

strategy differently and the evidence that he could and would have shown to the jury.”); id. at 16

(alleging without citation or explanation that the government manipulated the surveillance tape

“right when Valverde was starting to talk about the fees, rate, terms and conditions of the loan the

tape was suddenly edited by the D.A.’s office”).

Petitioner had access to at least his transcripts since 2011, and fails to explain why he has not

included any citations to the record. See Docket # 46 at 3 (12/10/11 letter from attorney Elisa

Brandes to H. Covarrubias stating that attorney has sent the transcripts to Mr. Covarrubias’ sister). 

2

 See, e.g., Traverse, p. 13 (“I can prove my claim with documented evidence once given a

Discovery an (sic) Evidentiary Hearing”); id. at 17 (“Once granted a Discovery and an Evidentiary

Hearing, I can acquire the necessary evidence to support my claims” of ineffective assistance of

counsel); Docket # 1 at 12 (Claim 20 alleges that the D.A. misled the jury, and “request[s] a

handwriting expert to examine all the 1003 loan applications which are in the lenders file”). 

2

record.1

 Petitioner also repeatedly suggests that he will develop his claims later at an evidentiary

hearing.2 Petitioner’s insistence in his traverse that he will be develop and explain the evidentiary

basis for his claims at a later time is unwise in light of the Court’s earlier denial of his requests for

an investigator, discovery and an evidentiary hearing, as well as the Court’s explanation about the

stringent limitations imposed by 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) and (e) on this Court’s review of a habeas

petition. See Docket # 23, # 36, and # 43. 

A habeas petitioner bears the burden of proving his entitlement to relief under § 2254. 

See Cullen v. Pinholster, 131 S. Ct. 1388, 1398 (2011). “A district court lacks the power to act as a

party’s lawyer, even for pro se litigants.” Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1219 (9th Cir. 2007);

see also Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225, 231 (2004) (“District judges have no obligation to act as

counsel or paralegal to pro se litigants”). It is Petitioner’s duty – not the Court’s duty – to present

his legal arguments and identify the evidentiary support, including citations to particular pages in the

clerk’s transcript and reporter’s transcript, for each of his arguments. See generally Entm’t Research

Grp., Inc. v. Genesis Creative Grp., Inc., 122 F.3d 1211, 1217 (9th Cir.1997) (“We review only

Case 3:13-cv-04611-EMC Document 47 Filed 05/13/15 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

 Claim 1 and Claim 2 were presented in the state court appellate briefs written by the

attorney appointed to represent him on appeal. Petitioner does not need to provide further argument

or citations to the record for these two claims as they have been presented adequately by Petitioner’s 

attachment of the state appellate court briefs to his federal petition for writ of habeas corpus. 

3

issues which are argued specifically and distinctly in a party’s opening brief. We will not

manufacture arguments for an appellant, and a bare assertion does not preserve a claim.... [J]udges

are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried in briefs.”); Perez v. Kirkland, 2008 WL 3049856, *12

n.8 (C. D. Cal. 2008) (declining “petitioner’s invitation to augment the claims set forth in the

Petition and Traverse via an undirected search through hundreds of pages of state court filings”). 

This Court will not read through 14,000+ pages of the state court record to marshal Petitioner’s

arguments and evidence for him. The lengthy record has evidence about numerous financial

transactions with numerous borrowers and multiple lenders, which makes it even more important

that the petitioner clearly explain the factual basis for each of his claims and point the Court to the

specific evidence that supports each of those claims. 

Out of an abundance of caution, the Court will give Petitioner one last opportunity to provide

details and citations to the record in support of his claims other than Claim 1 and Claim 2.3

 No later

than June 26, 2015, Petitioner must file a supplemental brief provides for each claim: (1) a

description of the facts supporting each claim, i.e., explaining specifically what happened or did not

happen that caused a violation of his constitutional rights; and (2) citations to the particular page(s)

in the reporter’s transcript and the clerk’s transcript that support that claim. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 13, 2015

_________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:13-cv-04611-EMC Document 47 Filed 05/13/15 Page 3 of 3