Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_95-cv-01500/USCOURTS-caed-2_95-cv-01500-15/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 Because oral argument will not be of material 1

assistance, the court orders this matter submitted on the briefs. 

E.D. Cal. L.R. 78-230(h).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

GERALD F. STANLEY,

NO. CIV. S-95-1500 FCD GGH P

Petitioner,

DEATH PENALTY CASE

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JEANNIE WOODFORD,

Respondent.

----oo0oo----

This matter is before the court on petitioner Gerald

Stanley’s request for reconsideration of the magistrate judge’s

orders, filed October 20, 26, and 27, 2005 (Docket #s 567, 569, 

& 570). While these orders addressed a variety of issues, 1

petitioner brings the instant motion only with respect to two

issues: (1) whether the magistrate judge properly denied

petitioner an evidentiary hearing on Claim 27 with respect to the

Case 2:95-cv-01500-JAM-CKD Document 594 Filed 12/07/05 Page 1 of 6
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

To the extent petitioner raises alleged errors stemming 2

from the magistrate judge’s order of September 2, 2005, his

motion is untimely, and the court does not consider those

arguments. The court previously considered petitioner’s

objections/motion to reconsider as to the September 2 order in

its order of November 9, 2005 (Docket # 574), and it will not

entertain a further motion concerning that order.

The magistrate judge previously ruled that petitioner 3

was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing regarding Claim 27

which alleged the wrongful suppression of the Colusa County

District Attorney’s decision not to seek an indictment against

petitioner for the murder of Cheryl Wright (the so-called “Colusa

County Murder” proved as an aggravating circumstance at

(continued...)

2

issue of ineffective assistance of counsel and (2) whether the

magistrate judge properly denied petitioner’s request for

discovery from respondent as to all of petitioner’s writings in

its possession.2

In considering non-dispositive pre-trial matters, the

magistrate judge’s order is governed by the “clearly erroneous or

contrary to law” standard set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). 

As such, the magistrate judge’s order cannot be set aside or

modified unless the findings of fact are clearly erroneous or the

conclusions are contrary to law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); Grimes

v. San Francisco, 951 F.2d 236, 239-40 (9th Cir. 1991). The

order should be modified or set aside only if the reviewing court

is left “‘with the definite and firm conviction,’ that the

[magistrate judge’s] key findings are mistaken.” Easley v.

Cromartie, 532 U.S. 234, 243 (2001) (citation omitted).

Here, with regard to Claim 27, petitioner seeks

reconsideration of the magistrate judge’s determination that he

is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing as to a claim of

ineffective assistance of counsel related this claim. (Order, 3

Case 2:95-cv-01500-JAM-CKD Document 594 Filed 12/07/05 Page 2 of 6
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

(...continued) 3

petitioner’s penalty trial). (Order, filed Sept. 2, 2005.) The

court denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of this

decision on November 9, 2005. (Mem. & Order, filed Nov. 9, 2005,

at 3.) In his order of October 20, the magistrate judge

responded to the parties’ informal request for clarification

regarding this claim and whether an evidentiary hearing was

permitted on the claim in any respect.

The court acknowledges that petitioner mentioned Claim 4

27, in his reply, in conjunction with his other claims asserting

ineffective assistance of counsel (Docket #511 at 3:10-11);

however, the magistrate judge properly disregarded this argument

as to Claim 27 since it was raised for the first time in the

reply.

3

filed Oct. 20, 2005.) The magistrate judge reached this

conclusion because petitioner’s motion for an evidentiary hearing

did not request such a hearing on this issue. (Order, filed Oct.

20, 2005 at 2.) Rather, as set forth in petitioner’s motion,

filed April 8, 2005, petitioner sought a hearing on Claim 27 as

follows: “Mr. Stanley Is Entitle [sic] To An Evidentiary Hearing

on His Claim of Prosecutorial Suppression of Material Information

[re: the Colusa County Murder].” (Mem. of P.&A re: Req. for

Evid. Hearing, filed April 8, 2005, at 63.) Nowhere in this

section of his brief did petitioner argue for an evidentiary

hearing based on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel

related to this issue; instead, the entirety of his argument

alleged the suppression of exculpatory evidence and/or the

presentation of false testimony by the State. (Id. at 63-68.)4

The magistrate judge thus properly denied petitioner an

evidentiary hearing as the issue of ineffective assistance of

counsel related to this claim was never raised by petitioner in

his motion.

Case 2:95-cv-01500-JAM-CKD Document 594 Filed 12/07/05 Page 3 of 6
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

Footnote 81 to Claim 27 states: “If trial counsel was 5

aware of the exculpatory evidence discussed in this claim and did

not pursue it, and/or if counsel unreasonably failed to discover

the evidence, then Petitioner’s right to the effective assistance

of counsel was violated.” (Am. Petition at 185.)

4

Petitioner nonetheless now attempts to argue that because he

made a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in a footnote

to Claim 27 in his Amended Petition, the magistrate judge should 5

have considered his motion for an evidentiary hearing as

including this issue on this claim. Petitioner is correct that

the magistrate judge failed to acknowledge this footnote when he

found “[t]he Amended Petition in this action limits Claim 27 to

alleged suppression of evidence, and likewise does not base a

claim involving the Wright murder on ineffective assistance of

counsel.” (Order, filed Oct. 20, 2005, at 2:18-20.) Petitioner,

however, is incorrect that the magistrate judge should have

assumed petitioner was seeking an evidentiary hearing, in his

motion, based on this fleeting reference in the Amended Petition,

particularly when the footnote is not mentioned, let alone

discussed, in the 69-page motion for an evidentiary hearing.

Moreover, the court questions whether petitioner has 

brought a bona fide claim on this issue. As respondent points

out in its opposition, courts have routinely found that brief,

unsupported references to an issue that is absent from an

argumentative heading, especially when presented only in a

footnote, are not sufficient to present a claim. See People v.

Turner, 8 Cal. 4 137, 214 n. 19 (1994); People v. Harper, 82 th

Cal. App. 4 1413, 1419 n. 4 (2000); In re Keisha T., 38 Cal. th

App. 4 220, 237 n. 7 (1995). While the court does not decide th

Case 2:95-cv-01500-JAM-CKD Document 594 Filed 12/07/05 Page 4 of 6
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

5

this issue herein, these cases are worthy of notation and

certainly support a finding that the magistrate judge’s decision

was appropriate.

For all of the above reasons, the court cannot find that the

magistrate judge’s decision, denying petitioner an evidentiary

hearing as to a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on

Claim 27, was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Petitioner’s

motion for reconsideration on this issue is DENIED.

As to the denial of discovery, in the magistrate judge’s

order of October 26, 2005, addressing various discovery disputes

between the parties, he denied petitioner’s request that

respondent produce all documents concerning petitioner’s

writings. He found that “[s]uch discovery at this point is what

the undersigned used to term–‘have your opponent chase his tail

before trial’ discovery, i.e., divert concentration from the

important tasks at hand. If counsel need to investigate their

client’s writings, petitioner and the court files are the best

source for this.” (Order, filed Oct. 26, 2005, at 9:4-7.) 

Despite the reference to this order, petitioner’s instant motion

does not relate directly to this finding. Instead, he requests

herein “discovery and an evidentiary hearing to rebut the 

[magistrate judge’s prior] finding of withdrawal [of Claim 25 re:

shackling], and/or to prove the substance of Claim 25.” (Mot.

Reconsid., filed Nov. 10, 2005, at 8:7-8.) 

Petitioner’s Claim 25 alleges unconstitutional shackling. 

In the magistrate judge’s order of September 2, 2005, he denied

petitioner an evidentiary hearing on the claim, finding based on

a letter petitioner wrote to the court, that petitioner had

Case 2:95-cv-01500-JAM-CKD Document 594 Filed 12/07/05 Page 5 of 6
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

6

withdrawn the claim. Petitioner moved for reconsideration of

this finding. In its order of November 9, 2005, this court

granted petitioner’s motion to the extent it referred to the

magistrate judge for findings and recommendations regarding the

issue of petitioner’s withdrawal of his shackling claim. (Mem. &

Order, filed Nov. 9, 2005.) That matter is currently pending

before the magistrate judge. As such, if petitioner seeks

discovery pertaining to his alleged withdrawal of his claim

and/or an evidentiary hearing on that issue (rather than the

substance of Claim 25), that request should be made to the

magistrate judge, who is considering the withdrawal issue in the

first instance. Thus, in that regard, petitioner’s instant

motion is denied. However, to the extent petitioner seeks

discovery and/or an evidentiary hearing regarding the substance

of Claim 25, he may renew that request in objecting to the

findings and recommendations. Such a request only will be

pertinent should this court find, contrary to the magistrate

judge’s prior finding, that petitioner did not voluntarily

withdraw his shackling claim. 

In sum, for the foregoing reasons, petitioner’s motion for

reconsideration of the magistrate judge’s October 20, 26, and 27,

2005 orders is DENIED in its entirety.

DATED: December 7, 2005

/s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

FRANK C. DAMRELL, Jr.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:95-cv-01500-JAM-CKD Document 594 Filed 12/07/05 Page 6 of 6