Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00865/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00865-1/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALVIN DALTON,

Petitioner,

v.

KATAVICH,

Respondent.

1:15-cv-00865-AWI-GSA-HC

ORDER REGARDING PETITIONER’S 

MOTION TO CLARIFIY

(ECF No. 22)

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO 

AUGMENT AND EXPAND RECORD (ECF 

Nos. 12, 15, and 17)

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in a habeas corpus action pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2254. 

On June 18, 2015, Petitioner filed a motion to augment the record and petition with 

affidavits. (ECF No. 12). On June 25, 2015, Petitioner filed a motion to augment the record and 

petition with an exhibit. (ECF No. 15). On August 3, 2015, Petitioner filed a motion to expand 

the record and petition with affidavits. (ECF No. 17). On August 24, 2015, Petitioner filed a 

motion to clarify. (ECF No. 22).

In Petitioner’s August 24, 2015 motion to clarify, Petitioner asked for a clarification as to 

the date of that proposed order and asked that Respondent serve him with orders that are dated 

and signed. However, it appears that Petitioner has mistaken the proposed order for a signed 

order or for a motion by Respondent. The proposed order was Respondent’s proposed order to 

the Court and Respondent served a copy of that proposed order on Petitioner. As the order was 

Case 1:15-cv-00865-AWI-EPG Document 25 Filed 09/23/15 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

only a proposed order, it was not signed by the Court. The Court also notes that the proposed 

order was not a motion or pleading by Respondent, but a proposed order for Respondent’s 

motion for an extension of time to file his response to the petition. The Court subsequently 

issued an order on August 18, 2015, granting Respondent’s request for an extension of time to 

file his response to petition and served that order on both parties. (ECF No. 21). Therefore, 

Petitioner’s motion to clarify is granted as stated above. 

In Petitioner’s June 18, 2015 motion to augment the record and petition, he claims that 

the exhibit he attached to his motion is relevant to claims one, two, and seven of the petition. 

Petitioner seeks to admit police reports to show that the victim had a propensity toward violence 

and was an aggressor and participant in this matter. Petitioner’s August 3, 2015 motion is a 

duplicate of his motion on June 18, 2015. (ECF Nos. 12, 17). In Petitioner’s June 25, 2015 

motion to augment the record and petition, he seeks to augment the record with a copy of the 

Report’s Transcript on Appeal Volume II cover page, Volume II table of contents, and RT 352,

353, 354, and 390. 

A court entertaining a federal habeas petition “may direct the parties to expand the record 

by submitting additional materials relating to the petition.” Rule 7(a), Rules Governing Section 

2254 Cases. The types of materials that may be submitted include, but are not limited to, “letters 

predating the filing of the petition, documents, exhibits, and answers under oath to written 

interrogatories propounded by the judge,” and affidavits. Rule 7(b); Advisory Committee Notes, 

1976 Adoption, Subdivision (b). If the court directs expansion, then “the party against whom the 

additional materials are offered” must have an opportunity to admit or deny their correctness. 

Rule 7(c). An important purpose of habeas Rule 7 is to enable a judge to rule on a petition 

without expending the time and resources that an evidentiary hearing requires. Advisory 

Committee Notes, 1976 Adoption. However, “[a]n expanded record may also be helpful when 

an evidentiary hearing is ordered.” Id. Because of the nature and purpose of Rule 7, a party 

seeking to expand the record must demonstrate entitlement to an evidentiary hearing under the 

federal habeas statute. Holland v. Jackson, 542 U.S. 649, 653 (2004); Cooper-Smith v. 

Palmateer, 397 F.3d 1236, 1241 (9th Cir. 2005). The Court, however, has not yet reviewed 

Case 1:15-cv-00865-AWI-EPG Document 25 Filed 09/23/15 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

Petitioner’s claims in detail, and cannot determine whether an evidentiary hearing or expansion 

of the record is necessary until it conducts such a review. Therefore, the motions to augment and 

expand the record must be denied without prejudice. Following a detailed review of the 

pleadings, transcripts, and other materials submitted in this action, the court sua sponta will 

order such expansion of the record if it appears necessary. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s motion to clarify is GRANTED as stated above; and

2. Petitioner’s motions to augment and expand the record (ECF Nos. 12, 15, and 17) are 

DENIED without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 23, 2015 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00865-AWI-EPG Document 25 Filed 09/23/15 Page 3 of 3