Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01200/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01200-8/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)

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEREMY P. PUCKETT, No. CIV S-06-1200-FCD-CMK-P

Petitioner, 

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

T. FELKER, et al.,

Respondents.

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pending before the court is petitioner’s motion for

an evidentiary hearing (Doc. 38), filed on March 26, 2007. Respondents have filed an

opposition and petitioner has filed a reply. 

An evidentiary hearing is required if: (1) the petitioner’s allegations would, if

true, entitle the petitioner to relief; and (2) the state court has not, after a full and fair hearing,

reliably found the facts. See Jones v. Wood, 114 F.3d 1002, 1010 (9th Cir. 1997). Otherwise,

whether to hold an evidentiary hearing is within the discretion of the court. See Townsend v.

Smith, 372 U.S. 293, 313, 318 (1963). An evidentiary hearing is not appropriate where there are

no disputed material facts or where the claims present purely legal questions. See Harris v.

Case 2:06-cv-01200-RJB Document 45 Filed 06/08/07 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

2

Pulley, 885 F.2d 1354, 1378 (9th Cir. 1988). 

A petitioner is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing where he was at fault for

failing to develop the record in state court, unless one of the exceptions outlined in 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254(e)(2) is met. Thus, a petitioner must demonstrate due diligence with respect to

developing the factual record in state court. “Diligence . . . depends upon whether the prisoner

made a reasonable attempt, in light of the information available at the time, to investigate and

pursue claims in state court.” See Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 420, 435, 437 (2000). To

demonstrate diligence a petitioner must, at a minimum, seek an evidentiary hearing in state

court. See id. Whether the petitioner has been diligent is a question of fact for the district court

that cannot be disturbed unless clearly erroneous. See Gandarela v. Johnson, 286 F.3d 1080,

1087 (9th Cir. 2002). 

Petitioner argues that an evidentiary hearing is warranted based on four items of

evidence. Specifically, petitioner describes this evidence as follows:

1. There was prosecution misconduct in her opening

statements, when the prosecutor mentioned the unfortunate death of

Angela Dvorsky and purposely describing what happened to Dvorsky in

detail, insinuating petitioner was responsible for this death. (emphasis in

original). Respondent states that the prosecutor had to let the jury know

why Dvorsky would not be there to testify. Well petitioner’s feels if that

is the case the prosecutor would of done the very same in co-defendant’s

Israel Sept’s trial. (citation to traverse omitted). However she didn’t

because the prosecutor felt petitioner was somehow responsible for what

happened to Dvorsky which is untrue. 

2. Trial judge denied petitioner his right to cross-examine

Israel Sept concerning the fact that Sept held petitioner responsible for

Benny Campbell’s death who was a very close friend of both petitioner

and Sept. Well Sept knew & knows that petitioner was not responsible in

anyway for their friend dying in an accidental house fire. (emphasis in

original; citation to traverse omitted). 

3. Petitioner presented new evidence of 4 alibi witnesses who

all can vouch for petitioner’s whereabouts the night of the crime. They

were never investigated or called to testify on petitioner’s behalf. They all

can vouch that petitioner returned home to stay between 11-11:30 pm on

March 12th, 1998. And this is during the time that Sept is committing the

crime against Anthony Galati. (citation to traverse omitted). Also trial

lawyer failed to have Sept impeached with statements he gave to both

Case 2:06-cv-01200-RJB Document 45 Filed 06/08/07 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

3

lawyer & defense investigator before trial. Stating that petitioner was

innocent of the crime petitioner is charged with. Sept denied ever saying

this, so trial lawyer should of called defense investigator to have Sept

impeached with ready and available evidence. (emphasis in original;

citation to petition omitted). 

4. Evidence was given to show that March 13th, 1998 as

being the night the crime occurred is false. That in fact March 12th, 1998

is indeed the correct night as petitioner has clearly established in his

habeas petition and traverse. Due to what the prosecution Star Witness

has stated from the beginning all the way through to petitioners trial. 

(emphasis in original). That he rented the motel room after Galati was

killed. (citation to record omitted). Even the prosecutor herself has stated

in her opening statements, that the motel room was rented after Galati was

killed. (citations to record and traverse omitted). Which would push and

prove that the crime had happened Mar. 12th while petitioner was home. 

Please don’t take petitioner’s word for it, but give petitioners issue an

independent review and let the record, evidence, and facts speak for

themselves. 

At the outset, the court is not sure what evidence petitioner believes exists that

would support his claims. Specifically, petitioner has not stated which facts were not considered

by the state court but would create a material dispute. Moreover, and assuming for the moment

that petitioner meets all of the other requirements for a mandatory evidentiary hearing, the court

finds that petitioner has not demonstrated due diligence. As to why evidence was not presented

to the state court, petitioner repeatedly states that his counsel was deficient for failing to present

the evidence. He does not, however, describe with specificity any efforts to pursue the evidence

in the context of his state habeas petitions. 

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that petitioner’s motion for

an evidentiary hearing (Doc. 38) be denied.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 20 days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:06-cv-01200-RJB Document 45 Filed 06/08/07 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

4

Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive

the right to appeal. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: June 6, 2007.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-01200-RJB Document 45 Filed 06/08/07 Page 4 of 4