Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02083/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02083-0/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 

16cv2083 BAS (NLS) 

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 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DANIEL LEE THORNBERRY, 

Petitioner,

v. 

JOSEPH LIZARRAGA, Warden, 

Respondent.

 Case No.: 16cv2083 BAS (NLS) 

REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION FOR ORDER 

GRANTING PETITIONER’S 

MOTION TO AMEND THE 

PETITION [Dkt. No. 13]; and 

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT 

MOTION TO EXPAND THE 

RECORD [Dkt. No. 19]. 

 Petitioner Daniel Thornberry filed a petition for habeas corpus in August 2016 

containing four claims. He filed a motion for stay and abeyance so that he could return to 

state court to exhaust claims two through four. The court set a briefing schedule on the 

motion for stay and abeyance. Just after the briefing schedule was set, Thornberry filed a 

motion to withdraw the stay and abeyance motion and a motion to amend the petition. In 

the motion to amend, Thornberry seeks to withdraw claims two through four of his 

petition. He seeks to file the attachment located on CM/ECF pages 3 to 16 of his motion 

as his first amended petition. Respondent filed a notice of non-opposition to the motion 

to amend and also lodged the state court record. 

Case 3:16-cv-02083-BAS-NLS Document 20 Filed 11/09/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2 

16cv2083 BAS (NLS) 

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

 The day before Respondent lodged the state court record, Thornberry filed a 

motion to expand the record. The court will address that motion without an opposition 

from Respondent. 

Motion to Amend the Petition. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) may be used to allow a petitioner to amend 

his petition with the court’s leave. See Rule 5, Rules Governing 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. 

foll. § 2254 Adv. Comm. Notes. Here, Thornberry seeks to remove three unexhausted 

claims from his petition. Respondent does not oppose. For good cause shown, the court 

RECOMMENDS that the district judge GRANT the motion for leave to amend the 

petition and ORDER the clerk to file CM/ECF pages 3 to 16 of his motion for leave to 

amend as Thornberry’s First Amended Petition. 

This report and recommendation of the undersigned Magistrate Judge is submitted 

to the United States District Judge assigned to this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1). IT IS ORDERED that no later than November 23, 2016, any party to this 

action may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. The 

document should be captioned “Objections to Report and Recommendation.” 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any reply to the objections must be filed with 

the court and served on all parties no later than November 30, 2016. The parties are 

advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 

raise those objections on appeal of the Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 

(9th Cir. 1991). 

Motion to Expand the Record. 

 Thornberry filed a motion to expand the record under Rule 7 of the Rules 

Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. He argues the 

expansion is necessary to help him fully plead and prove the facts and allegations in his 

petition in a clear and concise way. Thornberry does not request an evidentiary hearing. 

Rather, he asks the court to direct the Attorney General’s office to provide these materials 

to him: (1) transcripts from Thornberry’s preliminary hearing; (2) transcripts from his 

Case 3:16-cv-02083-BAS-NLS Document 20 Filed 11/09/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3 

16cv2083 BAS (NLS) 

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

sentencing hearing; (3) Thornberry’s habeas petition filed in superior court on March 30, 

2015; (4) his habeas petition filed in the appellate court on May 15, 2015; (5) 

Thornberry’s petition for review in the California Supreme Court filed on August 1, 

2015; (6) the California Supreme Court’s denial of the petition for review on August 12, 

2015; (7) the abstract of judgment from his trial court case; and (8) all audio 

transcriptions of every hearing in his trial court case. 

 Under Rule 7 courts may expand the record without holding an evidentiary 

hearing. See Cooper-Smith v. Palmateer, 397 F.3d 1236, 1241 (9th Cir. 2005). Rule 7 

sets these parameters for expanding a record: 

(a) In General. If the petition is not dismissed, the judge may 

direct the parties to expand the record by submitting additional 

materials relating to the petition. The judge may require that 

these materials be authenticated. 

(b) Types of Materials. The materials that may be required 

include letters predating the filing of the petition, documents, 

exhibits, and answers under oath to written interrogatories 

propounded by the judge. Affidavits may also be submitted and 

considered as part of the record. 

(c) Review by the Opposing Party. The judge must give the 

party against whom the additional materials are offered an 

opportunity to admit or deny their correctness. 

See Rule 7, Rules Governing 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254 Adv. Comm. Notes. 

 Even when a petitioner seeks relief based on new evidence and without an 

evidentiary hearing, the petitioner must still meet the conditions of obtaining an 

evidentiary hearing under section 2254(e)(2). Holland v. Jackson, 542 U.S. 649, 652-653 

(2004). Those conditions include showing: 

(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 

Case 3:16-cv-02083-BAS-NLS Document 20 Filed 11/09/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4 

16cv2083 BAS (NLS) 

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

(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. 

28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2). 

Here, Thornberry does not appear to seek the admission of new evidence. He asks 

only for a copy of his state court record. The day after Thornberry mailed this motion, 

the Attorney General provided to the court and served on Thornberry the lodgment in this 

case comprised of the state court records. Thornberry does not appear to seek anything 

further. Because Thornberry does not seek new or additional evidence, and because the 

Attorney General already provided Thornberry with a copy of his state court record, this 

court DENIES as moot Thornberry’s motion to expand the record. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: November 9, 2016 

Case 3:16-cv-02083-BAS-NLS Document 20 Filed 11/09/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4