Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06496/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06496-5/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)

---

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

cd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

—o0o—

MANUEL SHOTWELL, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

A.A. LAMARQUE, )

)

Respondents. )

 )

1:04-CV-06496 LJO JMD (HC)

ORDER DIRECTING EXPANSION OF THE

RECORD

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

Petitioner filed the instant Amended Petition on June 29, 2006. On September 19, 2006,

Respondent filed its Answer to Petitioner’s Amended Petition. On January 21, 2007, Petitioner

filed a Traverse to Respondent’s Answer.

Rule 7 of the Federal Rules Governing §2254 Cases, a federal court, either on a party’s

motion or sua sponte, “may direct that the record be expanded by the parties by the inclusion of

additional materials relevant to the determination of the merits of the petition.” Habeas Rule 7 is

a “simplifying procedure” designed to “minimize the burden to all concerned” of the fact

Case 1:04-cv-06496-LJO -DLB Document 44 Filed 03/14/08 Page 1 of 2
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

 “Claim 3: Petitioner Was Deprived of the Effective Assistance of Counsel in (a) the 1

Failure to Request a Competency Hearing and (b) the Failure to Investigate Petitioner’s Mental

Disorder and thereby Establish a Mental Defense to the Crime.” Amended Petition at 9.

cd 2

development process. Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478, 487 (1986).

Under Rule 7, “affidavits may be submitted and considered as part of the record.” 

Habeas Rule 7; Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 309-10 and n. 18 (1996). If affidavits are accepted

and admitted by the Court, “any party shall have the right to propound written interrogatories to

the affiants, or to file answering affidavits.” 28 U.S.C. §2246.

In the instant case, the Court has reviewed the record and has concluded that it is

incomplete with respect to claim three of Petitioner’s Amended Petition. Pursuant to Habeas

1

Rule 7, the Court hereby ORDERS Respondent to provide within sixty (60) days an affidavit of

Petitioner’s trial counsel describing what, if any, investigation trial counsel made into

Petitioner’s mental condition, and explaining trial counsel’s decision not to pursue a mental

defense in Petitioner’s case. The Court further ORDERS Petitioner to file any response to this

affidavit within thirty (30) days of the filing of Respondent’s affidavit.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 14, 2008 /s/ John M. Dixon 

0c08b7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06496-LJO -DLB Document 44 Filed 03/14/08 Page 2 of 2