Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00189/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00189-3/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

27

28

1

 Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1.f.3.c, “If an opposing party fails to file the papers [in a

timely manner], that failure may constitute a consent to the granting of a motion or other request for

ruling by the court.” 

- 1 - 11cv189

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY D. SWANEGAN,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 11CV189 JLS (PCL)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

COMPEL FREE TRANSCRIPT OF

MARSDEN HEARING 

(ECF No. 18)

vs.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

Defendant.

Presently before the Court is Habeas Petitioner Anthony D. Swanegan’s (“Petitioner”)

motion for an order compelling the respondents to provide Petitioner with a “free transcript of a

full verbatim record of the Marsden motion hearing.” (Pl.’s Mot. 2, ECF No. 18) The motion was

filed nunc pro tunc September 16, 2011. On October 6, 2011, the Court issued a briefing schedule

setting November 3, 2011 as the date of filing for a response, and noting that the hearing date on

the motion was set for December 8, 2011. (Order, Oct. 6, 2011, ECF No. 19) Respondent failed

to file a response by the November 3, 2011 deadline.1

 The hearing set for the motion on December

8, 2011, was vacated, and the matter taken under submission on the papers. 

//

Case 3:11-cv-00189-JLS-PCL Document 21 Filed 12/05/11 Page 1 of 3
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

 Additionally, the California Court of Appeal’s denial of Petitioner’s writ for habeas corpus

specifically indicated that Petitioner “provided very limited documentation concerning the present plea

agreement and his prior convictions,” noting the absence of transcripts in particular. (Resp’t’s Notice

of Lodgment (“NOL”) No. 7, ECF No. 14 (California Court of Appeal order denying habeas petition))

Despite Petitoner’s request for transcripts in his appeal to the California Supreme Court, (NOL No.

8, ECF No. 14 (Notice of Appeal to California Supreme Court)), the California Supreme Court denied

the petition without opinion and without addressing Petitioner’s request for hearing transcripts. 

- 2 - 11cv189

The Supreme Court has established that a “State must, as a matter of equal protection,

provide indigent prisoners with the basic tools of an adequate defense or appeal, when those tools

are available for a price to other prisoners.” Britt v. North Carolina, 404 U.S. 226, 227 (1971). 

Pursuant to this rule, “the State must provide an indigent defendant with a transcript of prior

proceedings when that transcript is needed for an effective defense or appeal.” Id. To determine

the defendant’s need, courts should consider “(1) the value of the transcript to the defendant in

connection with the appeal or trial for which it is sought, and (2) the availability of alternative

devices that would fulfill the same functions as a transcript.” Id.

Here, Petitioner’s claim for habeas relief is premised on the alleged ineffective assistance

of his trial counsel in negotiating the plea agreement, in that counsel failed to accurately tally the

number of Petitioner’s prior strikes. (Pet. 6, ECF No. 4) The sought-after transcript is that from

the Marsden motion hearing regarding Petitioner’s request for appointment of different counsel on

the same date that Petitioner entered into the plea agreement. Thus, Petitioner easily establishes

the first prong necessary to demonstrate need. See Britt, 404 U.S. at 228 & n.3.2

 Moreover,

Respondent does not offer any alternative devices available to Petitioner that serve the same

function as a transcript. Petitioner is not required to rely on his memory of the hearing or any

notes he may have taken at the time. See id. at 229 & n.4. 

It is unclear from the lodgments whether a transcript of the Marsden hearing is readily

available. (NOL No. 1 at 15 (“Marsden hearing held. . . . Court reporter’s notes of this proceeding

are ordered sealed and not to be transcribed unless by further order of the Court.”)) But because

Respondent did not oppose this motion, it is unclear what suitable alternatives might be available

in lieu of an official reporter’s transcript. The Court therefore ORDERS that a stenographic

transcript of the Marsden hearing be prepared and provided to Petitioner at no cost.

//

Case 3:11-cv-00189-JLS-PCL Document 21 Filed 12/05/11 Page 2 of 3
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 - 11cv189

Within twenty-eight days of the electronic docketing of this Order, Respondent SHALL

FILE a notice of compliance with this Court’s Order directing Respondent to provide a free copy

of the transcript of the Marsden hearing to Petitioner. Petitioner shall have twenty-eight days from

the date the notice of compliance is filed to file his objections to Magistrate Judge Lewis’s Report

and Recommendation. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: December 5, 2011

Honorable Janis L. Sammartino

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-00189-JLS-PCL Document 21 Filed 12/05/11 Page 3 of 3