Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06484/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06484-0/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

U.S . District Court

 E. D . California cd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

 ANDRE DAVIS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

CHARLES T. RANSDELL, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:03-CV-6484 LJO HC

ORDER SCHEDULING TELEPHONIC

HEARING

Date: February 27, 2006

Time: 8:45 a.m.

Dept: 8 (LJO)

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner is represented in this action by Michael J. Fitzpatrick, Esq. Respondent

is represented in this action by Deputy Attorney General Julie A. Hokans, Esq. The parties having

voluntarily consented to exercise of Magistrate Judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1),

by order dated April 5, 2004, this case was assigned to the Magistrate Judge for all purposes,

including entry of final judgment.

On October 24, 2003, Petitioner filed a federal habeas petition in this Court. Respondent filed

an answer on May 3, 2004. On June 1, 2004, Petitioner filed his traverse. 

The petition presents one ground for relief: Petitioner claims he received ineffective

Case 1:03-cv-06484-NEW Document 15 Filed 02/08/06 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

U.S . District Court

 E. D . California cd 2

assistance of counsel when defense counsel Dennis Doherty failed to call witness Gabriel Ayala for

the defense. Gabriel Ayala was a corrections officer at the prison during the relevant time period. 

According to his sworn declaration, see Exhibit 1, Traverse, Ayala was present during a conversation

between Petitioner and Officer W., one of the victims in this case, which occurred several months

after the incident but before the victim actually reported the incident to authorities. According to

Ayala, Officer W. instigated a conversation with Petitioner in which Officer W. and Petitioner

appeared to be “happy and laughing and joking with each other.” Ayala stated that Officer W.

“exhibited no fear of [Petitioner] nor did she exhibit any hostility or antagonism toward him by

either her words or actions.” Ayala stated that he had been subpoenaed but was never called to

testify. He also stated that no lawyer or investigator representing Petitioner contacted him until after

the trial.

Petitioner argues that Ayala’s testimony was critical because it contradicted Officer W.’s

testimony that she was afraid of Petitioner. Petitioner contends Ayala’s testimony would have “cast

enormous doubt on [Officer W.’s] credibility and on whether the attacks happened.” 

In an affidavit submitted to the 5th DCA, defense counsel explained that he decided not to call

Ayala because he considered Ayala’s testimony to be cumulative, since it was undisputed that the

victim “did not make any outcries until months later.” See Exhibit 2, Traverse. In addition, counsel

stated that Petitioner did not object at any time “before or during trial that [counsel] was not calling

some witness who he wanted [him] to call.” Id. However, defense counsel does not speak to the

points raised by Petitioner, to wit, to what degree if any he considered Ayala’s potential testimony in

seeking to challenge the victim’s credibility. Defense counsel also stated that he “believed there was

some damaging area for cross-examination of Mr. Ayala by the prosecutor, in some interview of

him, but I am not sure of this because I gave all of my documents in this case to the petitioner.” Id.

However, Ayala’s declaration contradicts this last assertion by counsel, and Petitioner contends he

has nothing in his case file that would corroborate counsel’s assertion.

On the basis of good cause, the Court finds it necessary to order an evidentiary hearing in this

matter. See Rule 8(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases; Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293,

313, 318 (1963). 

Case 1:03-cv-06484-NEW Document 15 Filed 02/08/06 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

U.S . District Court

 E. D . California cd 3

Accordingly, the Court:

1. ORDERS the parties to appear for a hearing on February 27, 2006, at 8:45 a.m., to meet

and confer for scheduling of the evidentiary hearing; and 

2. DIRECTS the parties to appear by telephone by arranging a one line conference call and

telephoning the Court at (559) 499-5680.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 7, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06484-NEW Document 15 Filed 02/08/06 Page 3 of 3