Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00267/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00267-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KHALED MOHAMED,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 15cv267-GPC(KSC)

ORDER GRANTING

PETITIONER’S MOTION TO

EXPAND THE RECORD

[Dkt. No. 29.]

v.

HEIDI M. LACKNER, Warden,

Defendant.

On June 5, 2017, Petitioner filed a motion to expand the record pursuant to Rule

7 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. (Dkt. No. 29.) Respondent has not filed

an opposition. Based on the reasoning below, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s motion

to expand the record. 

Discussion

On February 9, 2015, Petitioner Khaled Mohamed (“Petitioner”) filed a petition

for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 with counsel. (Dkt. No. 1.) In

2011, a jury convicted Mohamed of possession of methamphetamine for sale;

transportation of methamphetamine for sale between two noncontiguous countries;

conspiracy to sell methamphetamine; conspiracy to possess methamphetamine for sale;

and conspiracy to transport methamphetamine for sale. (Dkt. No. 12-10 at 362.) The

jury also found he used a false compartment to transport methamphetamines and the

quantity of methamphetamine exceeded 10 kilograms. (Id.) Mohamed was sentenced

- 1 - [15cv267-GPC(KSC)]

Case 3:15-cv-00267-GPC-KSC Document 30 Filed 07/21/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
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

to 16 years in prison. (Id. at 363.) 

The petition alleges the following claims: (1) violation of his Sixth Amendment 

right to counsel when the trial court denied his request to discharge retained counsel

prior to trial; (2) ineffective assistance of appellate counsel and denial of due process

because the court of appeal’s did not order production of the free talk, which

purportedly contained Brady material and revealed a conflict of interest; (3) denial of

the Sixth Amendment right to counsel because the free talk revealed that his trial

counsel had a conflict of interest; (4) Brady violation because the prosecution withheld

the free talk from the defense; and (5) ineffective assistance of trial counsel because

trial counsel did not use the free talk or call Lisa as a witness during trial precluding

evidence that Petitioner was innocent and/or deserved a lesser punishment. (Dkt. No.

1 at 6-13.) 

Central to Mohamed’s petition is a “free talk” that occurred between Lisa,

Mohamed’s girlfriend at the time, and the district attorney prosecuting Mohamed’s

case. The prosecution successfully claimed privilege and the state court sealed the

“free talk” pursuant to California Evidence Code section 1040. 

The superior court held an evidentiary hearing after the court of appeal issued

an order to show cause directing the superior court to hold an evidentiary hearing to

review the contents of the “free talk” in order to resolve issues raised in Petitioner’s

state habeas petition. After the evidentiary hearing, the superior court denied the

petition for writ of habeas corpus and discharged the OSC. (Dkt. No. 12-10 at 361-67.) 

In another habeas petition where Petitioner challenged the trial court’s findings at the

OSC evidentiary hearing, the court of appeal denied his petition without reviewing the

transcript of the “free talk” and relied on the superior court’s assessment of Lisa’s

comments during the “free talk.” (Dkt. No. 12-11 at 359.) 

In his motion, Petitioner seeks to expand the record for the Court to review the

sealed transcripts of the “free talk” conducted by Deputy District Attorney Tag and

- 2 - [15cv267-GPC(KSC)]

Case 3:15-cv-00267-GPC-KSC Document 30 Filed 07/21/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
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

Lisa, and an in-camera hearing with Deputy District Attorney Tag and state court

1

Judge Bloom “where questions were propounded to Tag by defense counsel” that the

court of appeal did not review. (Dkt. No. 29 at 1.) He claims these transcripts were

2

never reviewed by the court of appeal and it improperly relied on the conclusions of

the superior court judge at the order to show cause hearing. (Dkt. No. 29 at 4.) 

Rule 7 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases states that a judge “may

direct the partiesto expand the record by submitting additional materials relating to the

petition.” Such materials include, without limitation, “letters predating the filing ofthe

petition, documents, exhibits, and answers under oath to written interrogatories

propounded by the judge.” Id. “The purpose [of the rule] is to enable the judge to

dispose of some habeas petitions not dismissed on the pleadings, without the time and

expense required for an evidentiary hearing.” Id. advisory committee’s note on 1976

adoption. In Holland, the United States Supreme Court held that new evidence may

be considered in a federal habeas corpus proceeding only when the failure to develop

the facts in state court are not the petitioner’s fault, or when the requirements of 28

U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2) are satisfied. Holland v. Jackson, 542 U.S. 649, 652-53 (2004). 

3

Petitioner does not specify but it appears that he is referencing the in camera

1

hearing between the Court and Deputy District Attorneys Tag and Atkins held on

August 12, 2013 concerning the assertion of privilege of the “free talk.” (Dkt. No. 12-

10 at 315-16.) 

The Court also notes that in the traverse, Petitioner asserted that the Court

2

should review the transcripts of the “free talk” and the in camera hearing as they are

not part of the record before the Court. (Dkt. No. 16-1 at 22.) 

28 U.S.C. 2254(e)(2) provides, 3

(2)If the applicant has failed to develop the factual basis of a claim in State court

proceedings, the court shall not hold an evidentiary hearing on the claim unless

the applicant shows that--

(A) the claim relies on--

(i) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral

review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable; or

(ii) a factual predicate that could not have been previously discovered through

the exercise of due diligence; and

(B) the facts underlying the claim would be sufficient to establish by clear and

convincing evidence that but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder

would have found the applicant guilty of the underlying offense.

- 3 - [15cv267-GPC(KSC)]

Case 3:15-cv-00267-GPC-KSC Document 30 Filed 07/21/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
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

Here, Petitioner has unsuccessfully sought the production of the sealed “free

talk” transcript and has consistently argued in his state habeas petitions that the court

of appeal erred by not reviewing the sealed transcript of the “free talk.” Therefore, the

failure to develop the record was not Petitioner’s fault. 

In his motion, Petitioner cites to the recent Ninth Circuit case of Nasby v.

McDaniel, 853 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir. 2017), where the Ninth Circuit vacated the district

court’s dismissal of the petition and remanded the case to consider the petition after

obtaining and reviewing all relevant portions of the state court record. Id. at 1055. In

Nasby, the district court did not consider any of the state court records including the

trial transcript and the transcript of the evidentiary hearing held by the state court

which were relevant to deciding Petitioner’s claim. Id. at 1053. Instead, the district

court relied on the facts as described in the Supreme Court’s opinion denying relief. 

Id. at 1052. In remanding the case back to the district court, the court explained that

in order for there to be meaningful collateral review, the district court must

independently review the basis for the state court’s decision. Id. at 1052-53 (citing

Jones v. Wood, 114 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 1997)). The court explained that federal

habeas courts must “examine independently the basis for the state court’s decision,

rather than to accept the state court’s determination of the facts on faith.” Id. at 1053. 

Here, in one of his claims, Petitioner argues that the state appellate court erred

by failing to review the transcript of the “free talk” and relied solely on the trial court’s

review of the contents of the “free talk.” Moreover, all the claims in the Petition

originate from the contents of the “free talk.” Therefore, if Petitioner’s allegations are

true, he may be entitled to habeas relief. In order to conduct a meaningful collateral

review, the Court must independently consider all relevant state court records,

including the transcripts of the “free talk” and in-camera hearing concerning the

privilege issue that relate to certain claims in his petition. 

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s motion to expand the record

- 4 - [15cv267-GPC(KSC)]

Case 3:15-cv-00267-GPC-KSC Document 30 Filed 07/21/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
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

pursuant to Rule 7 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Respondent is directed

to submit a lodged copy of the sealed “free talk” transcript and/or audio recording, and

the sealed in-camera hearing transcript to the chambers of the undersigned judge for

an in-camera review on or before August 11, 2017. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: July 21, 2017

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

United States District Judge

- 5 - [15cv267-GPC(KSC)]

Case 3:15-cv-00267-GPC-KSC Document 30 Filed 07/21/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5