Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-01458/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-01458-5/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

MICHAEL W. BRISENO,

Petitioner, No. C 04-1458 PJH

v. ORDER RE: PETITIONER’S

REQUEST FOR EXPANSION OF

JEANNE S. WOODFORD, Director, RECORD

California Dept. of Corrections,

Respondent.

_______________________________/

Petitioner, who is currently in the custody of the California Department of

Corrections, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus on April 14, 2004. Currently before

the court is petitioner’s request to expand the record. Having considered petitioner’s

request, as well as respondent’s objections to the request, as stated in respondent’s reply

to petitioner’s traverse, the court hereby DENIES petitioner’s request to expand the record,

and GRANTS petitioner leave to file a renewed request, as follows. 

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On January 5, 2006, petitioner filed his traverse with the court, which included three

new declarations as exhibits, not previously submitted to the state courts. The state

subsequently objected to the new declarations in a reply to petitioner’s traverse, on

grounds that the three new declarations were not presented to the state court, add

additional facts that change the evidentiary bases for petitioner’s claims, and are therefore

not exhausted. 

Thereafter, on February 3, 2006, petitioner filed a formal request to expand the

record in order to include the three declarations. Petitioner’s request is based on Rule 7 of

the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases. 

Case 4:04-cv-01458-PJH Document 32 Filed 09/28/06 Page 1 of 4
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

2

DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standard 

Rule 7 of the Rules Governing § 2254 cases provides that: “If the petition is not

dismissed, the judge may direct the parties to expand the record by submitting additional

materials relating to the petition.” See also Cooper-Smith v. Palmateer, 397 F.3d 1236,

1241 (9th Cir. 2005). 

In Cooper-Smith, the Ninth Circuit stated that the requirements of 28 U.S.C. §

2254(e)(2) apply to decisions regarding expansion of the record under Rule 7. In other

words, an applicant shall not be entitled to Rule 7 expansion of the record, based on new

evidence, unless the petitioner “exercised diligence in his efforts to develop the factual

basis of his claims in state court proceedings.” See id. at 1241. 

B. Expansion of Record

The three declarations that petitioner seeks to include in the record are (1) a new

declaration by petitioner’s trial counsel, Thomas Salciccia; (2) a new declaration by

petitioner himself; and (3) a new declaration by petitioner’s brother, Modesto Briseno. See

Petitioner’s Traverse, Exs. 1, 3-4. Petitioner presumably seeks the admission of the

evidence to support all four federal habeas claims, which allege denial of due process and

effective assistance of counsel, in violation of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. The first

two declarations purport to augment declarations submitted by petitioner before the state

court, while the third declaration appears to be wholly new. 

Under the standard enunciated by the Ninth Circuit in Cooper-Smith, the court must,

as a threshold matter, determine whether petitioner exercised due diligence in his efforts to

develop the underlying factual basis of the above declarations before the state court. See

also Holland v. Jackson, 124 S.Ct. 2736, 2738 (2004). Diligence “depends upon whether

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

investigate and pursue claims in state court.” See Cooper-Smith, 397 F.3d at 1236. 

Here, however, although petitioner states in his request that he “consistently (and

Case 4:04-cv-01458-PJH Document 32 Filed 09/28/06 Page 2 of 4
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

fruitlessly) attempted to obtain an Order to Show Cause and evidentiary hearings on his

claims in the California courts,” in which “all of the disputed ‘new’ evidence would have

come out,” petitioner has provided no evidence in the record supporting this assertion. Nor

has petitioner demonstrated in his request the relevance and necessity of the new

declarations in ensuring a developed factual record before the court. 

Accordingly, if petitioner wishes to satisfy the threshold requirement for invoking

Rule 7 relief, he must provide an explanation for his failure to submit the subject

declarations to the state court, and furthermore demonstrate the relevance and necessity of

the new declarations. 

Moreover, as respondent highlights in its reply to petitioner’s traverse, even

assuming that petitioner satisfies the threshold requirement for Rule 7 relief, the

presentation of new evidence in the form of the above declarations may still render

petitioner’s claims unexhausted. See Aiken v. Spalding, 841 F.2d 881, 883-84 (9th Cir.

1988)(petitioner’s presentation of new evidence not before state courts during trial or

appeal required petitioner to first exhaust state law remedies before pursuing that theory in

federal habeas proceedings). The court notes that it may very well be likely that petitioner

can ultimately demonstrate that no exhaustion problem is implicated by submission of the

new declarations. See, e.g., Vasquez v. Hillery, 474 U.S. 254, 257-60 (1986)(the

“supplemental evidence presented by respondent did not fundamentally alter the legal

claim already considered by the state courts, and, therefore, did not require that [habeas

petitioner] be remitted to state court for consideration of that evidence”); Chacon v. Wood,

36 F.3d 1459, 1469 (9th Cir. 1994), superseded by statute on other grounds as recognized

by Morris v. Woodford, 229 F.3d 775, 779 (9th Cir.2000). Nonetheless, this issue, which

petitioner’s request confusingly argues in conjunction with the threshold requirement

discussed in Cooper-Smith, cannot be determined at this juncture, and must await further

briefing of the threshold due diligence requirement. 

Case 4:04-cv-01458-PJH Document 32 Filed 09/28/06 Page 3 of 4
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

4

CONCLUSION 

For the reasons set forth above, and for good cause shown,

1. Petitioner’s request to expand the record is hereby DENIED. However, the

denial is without prejudice, and petitioner is hereby GRANTED LEAVE to file a renewed

request addressing the threshold due diligence requirement, and the relevance and

necessity of the subject declarations. Petitioner shall also address any arguments

regarding the effect of any expansion of the record on the exhaustion of his claims before

the court. 

Petitioner shall file his renewed request within fourteen days of the date of this order.

2. Respondent may serve an opposition to petitioner’s renewed request, if so

desired, within fourteen days of service of petitioner’s request. 

This order fully adjudicates the motion listed at No. 31 of the clerk’s docket for this

case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 28, 2006 

______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:04-cv-01458-PJH Document 32 Filed 09/28/06 Page 4 of 4