Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_99-cv-01466/USCOURTS-caed-2_99-cv-01466-1/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

EUGENE ROBERT CATE,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-99-1466 WBS JFM P

vs.

JOSEPH MCGRATH, Warden,

et al.,

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding through counsel with an application for a

writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This matter came on for hearing before the

undersigned on August 4, 2005 on petitioner’s motion for a protective order, to expand the

record to include, and to seal, a medical report by Dr. Joan B. Gerbasi, J.D., M.D. Respondents

oppose expansion of the record but they do not oppose sealing the document and petitioner’s

request for protective order in the event the report is admitted.

Petitioner presents the report in support of his claim that his attorney provided

constitutionally inadequate assistance by failing to investigate and present a diminished actuality

defense. There is no dispute that Dr. Gerbasi’s report is related to this claim. See Rule 7, 28

U.S.C. foll. § 2254. 

In their written opposition to the motion, respondents contend that the record

should not be expanded to include the report because the report “materially alters the nature” of

Case 2:99-cv-01466-GEB -JFM Document 61 Filed 09/22/05 Page 1 of 5
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

 That section provides: 1

2) If the applicant has failed to develop the factual basis of a claim in

State court proceedings, the court shall not hold an evidentiary

hearing on the claim unless the applicant shows that--

(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

2

petitioner’s claim and will render the claim unexhausted. This contention is without merit.

“‘[N]ew factual allegations do not render a claim unexhausted unless they “fundamentally alter

the legal claim already considered by the state courts.”’ Chacon v. Wood, 36 F.3d 1459, 1468

(9th Cir.1994) (quoting Vasquez v. Hillery, 474 U.S. 254, 260, 106 S.Ct. 617, 88 L.Ed.2d 598

(1986)).” Belmontes v. Brown, 414 1094, 1117 (9 Cir. 2005). The facts presented in Dr. th

Gerbasi’s declaration do not “fundamentally alter” petitioner’s ineffective assistance of counsel

claim, and admission of the declaration will not render that claim unexhausted.

At the hearing, respondents argued in addition that as a general rule § 2254(d)

limits the availability of habeas corpus relief to circumstances where a state court’s denial of

habeas corpus relief was based on an unreasonable application of the facts before the state court,

thus limiting the federal court to the factual record that was before the state court, that pursuant

to Holland v. Jackson, 542 U.S. 649 (2004) and Cooper-Smith v. Palmateer, 397 F.3d 1236 (9th

Cir. 2005), new evidence can only be used in a federal habeas corpus proceeding when it meets

the standard set forth in § 2254(e)(2) for an evidentiary hearing, and that petitioner has not

satisfied that requirement. 

In Holland, the United States Supreme Court held that, whether or not a federal

habeas petitioner seeks an evidentiary hearing, new evidence may only be considered in a federal

habeas corpus proceeding when the failure to develop the facts in state court are not the

petitioner’s fault, or when the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2) are satisfied. Holland, 1

Case 2:99-cv-01466-GEB -JFM Document 61 Filed 09/22/05 Page 2 of 5
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

(ii) a factual predicate that could not have been previously discovered

through the exercise of due diligence; and

(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).

3

124 S.Ct. at 2738 (citing Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 420, 431-437 (2000)). In Cooper-Smith,

the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that it is proper to require a

petitioner to make the showing required by § 2254(e)(2) when seeking to expand the record

pursuant to Rule 7, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. Cooper-Smith, 397 F.3d at 1241.

In Williams, the United States Supreme Court held in relevant part that “[i]f there

has been no lack of diligence at the relevant stages of the state court proceedings, the prisoner has

not ‘failed to develop’ the facts under § 2254(e)(2)’s opening clause, and he will be excused from

showing compliance with the balance of the subsection’s requirements.” Williams, 529 U.S. at

437.

Ordinarily diligence requires that a petitioner seek an evidentiary

hearing in state court in the manner prescribed by state law.

[Williams, at 437.] Under California law, an appellate court, when

presented with a state habeas petition, determines whether an

evidentiary hearing is warranted only after the parties file formal

pleadings, if they are ordered to do so. See People v. Duvall, 9

Cal.4th 464, 37 Cal.Rptr.2d 259, 886 P.2d 1252, 1258-61 (1995);

People v. Romero, 8 Cal.4th 728, 35 Cal.Rptr.2d 270, 883 P.2d

388, 391-94 (1994). [Where] the California Supreme Court

summarily denie[s] a state habeas petition without ordering formal

pleadings [the petition] never reache[s] the stage of the

proceedings at which an evidentiary hearing should be requested,

[the petitioner] has not shown “a lack of diligence at the relevant

stages of the state court proceedings” and therefore is not subject to

AEDPA’s restrictions on evidentiary hearings.

Horton v. Mayle, 408 F.3d 570, 582 n.6 (9 Cir. 2005). th

/////

Case 2:99-cv-01466-GEB -JFM Document 61 Filed 09/22/05 Page 3 of 5
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

 A court may take judicial notice of court records. See MGIC Indem. Co. v. Weisman, 803 2

F.2d 500, 505 (9th Cir. 1986); United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir. 1980).

4

The ineffective assistance of counsel claim at bar was presented to the state courts

in a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed in the California Supreme Court on August 28, 2000. 

(See Ex. 3 to Supplemental Brief filed September 27, 2001 in Cate v. Ayers, Case No. CIV S-01-

0384 WBS JFM P (hereafter “Supplemental Brief.”) The California Supreme Court summarily 2

denied that petition by order filed January 27, 2001, without ordering any formal briefing. (Ex. 4

to Supplemental Brief.) Petitioner did not, therefore, show a lack of diligence in the state court

proceedings and is not required to make a showing under § 2254(e)(2) in order to prevail on the

instant motion. See Horton, supra.

For all of the foregoing reasons, petitioner’s motion to expand the record will be

granted. The unopposed motions to seal and for a protective order will also be granted. 

Respondents will be given and opportunity to respond to Dr. Gerbasi’s medical report. See Rule

7(c), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s June 14, 2005 motions to expand the record, to seal, and for

protective order are granted.

2. The record is expanded to include the medical report of Dr. Joan Gerbasi.

3. Dr. Gerbasi’s report shall be maintained under seal until further order of court.

4. Dr. Gerbasi’s report is deemed confidential. It may be used only by

representatives from the Office of the California Attorney General and only for purposes of any

proceedings incident to litigating the claims present in the petition for writ of habeas corpus

pending before this Court. Disclosure of the contents of the documents and the documents

themselves may not be made to any other persons or agencies, including any other law

enforcement or prosecutorial personnel or agencies, without an order from this Court. This order

shall continue in effect after the conclusion of the habeas corpus proceedings and specifically

Case 2:99-cv-01466-GEB -JFM Document 61 Filed 09/22/05 Page 4 of 5
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

5

shall apply in the event of a retrial of all or any portion of petitioner’s criminal case, except that

either party maintains the right to request modification or vacation of this upon entry of final

judgment in this matter.

5. Within thirty days from the date of this order respondents may file and serve a

written response to Dr. Gerbasi’s medical report.

DATED: September 21, 2005.

12

cate1466.po

Case 2:99-cv-01466-GEB -JFM Document 61 Filed 09/22/05 Page 5 of 5