Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02793/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02793-3/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

15cv2793-BTM (RBB)

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARC EXTER JERNIGAN,

Petitioner,

v.

MERRIEN EDWARD, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No.: 15cv2793-BTM (RBB)

ORDER:

(1) ADOPTING THE FINDINGS AND 

CONCLUSIONS OF UNITED STATES 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE;

(2) DENYING PETITION FOR A 

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS;

(3) DENYING MOTION FOR STAY 

AND ABEYANCE; AND 

(4) GRANTING A LIMITED

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

Petitioner Marc Exter Jernigan is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a Petition 

for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his conviction for 

murder with the use of a deadly weapon, a knife, for which he is serving a sentence of 26 

years to life in state prison. (ECF No. 1.) He raises 54 claims in his 1477-page Petition. 

Case 3:15-cv-02793-BTM-RBB Document 49 Filed 12/26/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
2

15cv2793-BTM (RBB)

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

(Id.) Respondent1 has filed an Answer (ECF No. 19) and lodged over 11,000 pages of the 

state court record. (ECF Nos. 19–22.) Petitioner has filed a Traverse. (ECF No. 26.)

United States Magistrate Judge Ruben B. Brooks has filed an exceptionally thorough 

and well-reasoned 107-page Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) which recommends 

the Petition be denied, and which includes an Order denying Petitioner’s Motion for an 

evidentiary hearing and Motion for discovery. (ECF No. 36.) Petitioner has filed 

Objections to the R&R which includes a renewed request for an evidentiary hearing. (ECF 

No. 41.) He has also filed a Motion for stay and abeyance. (ECF No. 44.)

The Court has reviewed the R&R and Objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), 

which provides that: “A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those 

portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which 

objection is made. A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, 

the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The judge may also 

receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” 

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge must determine 

de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to. 

The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive 

further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.”) 

Petitioner objects that although the R&R identified 22 claims alleging misconduct, 

fraud and negligence by prosecution DNA expert Connie Milton, the R&R failed to reach 

 

1

 The Warden of the institution where Petitioner is confined, the originally named 

Respondent, has changed during the pendency of this action. See www.cdcr.ca.gov (last 

visited Sept. 13, 2019); see Daniels-Hall v. Nat’l Educ. Ass’n, 629 F.3d 992, 998–99 (9th 

Cir. 2010) (taking judicial notice of information posted on government website, the 

accuracy of which was undisputed). Because a writ of habeas corpus acts upon the 

custodian of the state prisoner, see 28 U.S.C. § 2242; Rule 2(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254, the 

Court sua sponte substitutes Ralph Diaz, Secretary of the California Department of 

Corrections and Rehabilitation, as Respondent. See Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 

891, 894 (9th Cir. 1996) (stating that the respondent in § 2254 proceedings may be the 

chief officer in charge of state penal institutions).

Case 3:15-cv-02793-BTM-RBB Document 49 Filed 12/26/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
3

15cv2793-BTM (RBB)

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

the merits of two of those claims (ECF No. 41 at 2), and objects to the findings and 

conclusions of the Magistrate Judge that he is not entitled to relief on any of those claims

(id. at 3–24). The R&R identified 22 of Petitioner’s 54 claims as alleging misconduct, 

fraud and negligence involving Milton’s work (ECF No. 36 at 11–13), and then discussed 

and analyzed those claims (id. at 12–20). Even assuming Petitioner could demonstrate the

Magistrate Judge failed to discuss every detail of his claims challenging Milton’s scientific 

methodology, this Court holds that it was objectively reasonable under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) 

for the state court to find Petitioner was not prejudiced by any alleged misconduct, fraud 

or negligence by Milton because: (1) the conclusions of three independent DNA experts 

(Colleen Spurgeon, Amy Rogala and Byron Sonnenberg) essentially confirmed Milton’s 

findings, including that Petitioner’s blood was found at the crime scene, (2) Marc Taylor,

the defense DNA expert, testified at trial he did not disagree with the findings of Milton, 

Spurgeon, Rogala and Sonnenberg, and (3) the alleged infirmities in Milton’s work were 

thoroughly exposed and explored at trial. (ECF No. 36 at 16–20.) Petitioner admits he 

repeats arguments already addressed in the R&R (ECF No. 41 at 19), and his objections to

the Magistrate Judge’s findings and conclusions regarding these claims (id. at 3–24) fail to

demonstrate those findings or conclusions are incorrect, particularly with respect to the 

prejudice analysis. 

Petitioner objects to the findings in the R&R with respect to his 11 claims alleging

prosecution DNA expert Sonnenberg and prosecution criminalist Chuck Merritt created 

false evidence, and contends the R&R failed to address one of those claims (ECF No. 41 

at 1), but again repeats arguments addressed in the R&R. (Compare id. at 24–43, with ECF 

No. 36 at 20–26, 33.) Even assuming he has identified some details of his claims not 

directly addressed by the Magistrate Judge, this court holds that he has not successfully 

challenged the overall finding in the R&R that it was objectively reasonable under 28 

U.S.C. § 2254(d) for the state court to reject these claims because Petitioner had failed to 

establish: (1) the evidence was false, (2) the prosecution knew or should have known it was 

false, or (3) it was material to his guilt or innocence. 

Case 3:15-cv-02793-BTM-RBB Document 49 Filed 12/26/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
4

15cv2793-BTM (RBB)

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

Finally, Petitioner objects to the findings in the R&R rejecting his ineffective 

assistance of counsel claims regarding the failure of his trial counsel to challenge Milton

and Sonnenberg regarding their DNA tests, but these too consist primarily of a repeat of 

arguments considered and rejected by the Magistrate Judge. (Compare ECF No. 41 at 33–

38, with ECF No. 36 at 41-57.) This Court holds that it was objectively reasonable under 

28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) for the state court to reject these claims because he was not prejudiced 

by the alleged deficient performance of counsel. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS in full 

the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge, OVERRULES Petitioner’s 

objections and DENIES the Petition for the reasons set forth in the R&R.

The Court also confirms the Magistrate Judge’s denial of Petitioner’s Motion for 

discovery and Motion for an evidentiary hearing. As set forth in the R&R, an evidentiary 

hearing is unnecessary because Petitioner’s claims can be decided on the merits without 

development of the record. See McDonald v. Johnson, 139 F.3d 1056, 1060 (9th Cir. 1998) 

(“The district court had sufficient facts before it to make an informed decision on the merits 

of McDonald’s claim and, accordingly, did not abuse its discretion [under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254(e)(2)] in refusing to hold an evidentiary hearing.”) Although Rule 7 of the Rules 

following 28 U.S.C. § 2254 provides for expansion of the record through discovery, such 

expansion is left to the discretion of the district court, and expansion is not necessary here 

for the same reason an evidentiary hearing is unnecessary. See Cooper-Smith v. Palmateer, 

397 F.3d 1236, 1241 (9th Cir. 2004) (holding that the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2) 

which apply to evidentiary hearings also apply to expansion of the record under Rule 7 of 

the habeas rules), overruled on other grounds by Daire v. Lattimore, 812 F.3d 766 (9th Cir. 

2016) (en banc). 

Finally, on August 26, 2019, over three and one-half years after initiating this action, 

and nearly five and one-half years after his conviction became final, Petitioner filed a 

Motion for stay and abeyance in which he requests the Court stay this action and hold his 

Petition in abeyance while he returns to state court to present “new case discovery”

revealing “exculpatory scientific evidence of a ‘third party’ DNA profile,” which he 

Case 3:15-cv-02793-BTM-RBB Document 49 Filed 12/26/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
5

15cv2793-BTM (RBB)

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

contends “creates reasonable doubt as to [his] guilt,” establishes his “actual innocence,”

and “undermines the prosecution’s entire forensic case theory . . . [and] confidence in the 

verdict.” (ECF No. 44 at 2.) The R&R correctly found that the state court adjudication of 

Petitioner’s claim that he was barred from presenting a third-party culpability defense on 

the basis that the defense allegations of third-party involvement were mostly false or 

speculative, was objectively reasonable under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). (ECF No. 36 at 68–

77.) Petitioner does not explain how an additional challenge to the DNA evidence would 

present a viable challenge to his conviction, particularly in light of the exhaustive 

discussion in the R&R regarding the DNA evidence, and in fact does not even identify the 

“new case discovery” he states he has obtained. The Motion for stay and abeyance is

entirely conclusory and is DENIED. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Having conducted a de novo review of those portions of the Magistrate Judge’s 

findings and conclusions to which Petitioner has objected, the Court ADOPTS the 

Magistrate Judge’s findings and conclusions in full, OVERRULES Petitioner’s 

Objections, and DENIES habeas relief for the reasons set forth in the R&R. 

The Court DENIES Petitioner’s Motion for stay and abeyance. 

The Court GRANTS a Certificate of Appealability on the following claims:

(1)The exclusion of third-party culpability evidence as to Glazebrook and Peraza 

discussed at pages 68–77 of the R&R; and

(2)The ineffective assistance of trial counsel and appellate counsel for not objecting 

and raising vouching by the prosecution in closing argument discussed at pages 99–

102 of the R&R.

A certificate of appealability is DENIED as to all other claims. The Clerk of Court 

shall enter judgment accordingly.

DATED: December 26, 2019 _____________________________________

 BARRY TED MOSKOWITZ

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:15-cv-02793-BTM-RBB Document 49 Filed 12/26/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5