Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00304/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00304-12/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 This matter was referred to a United States magistrate

judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 636(b)(1)(B) and Eastern

District Local Rule 72-302.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

MICHEAL E. FRANKLIN,

NO. 2:05-cv-304 FCD KJM P 

Petitioner,

v.

JAMES WALKER, Acting Warden, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Respondent.

----oo0oo----

This matter is before the court on petitioner Michael E.

Franklin’s (“petitioner”) motion for reconsideration of the

discovery order of the magistrate judge,1 filed December 15,

2009. In the order, the magistrate judge denied a discovery

request for dynamic testing of a snowmobile in petitioner

Michael Franklin’s (“petitioner”) writ of habeas corpus. 

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration on December 30,

Case 2:05-cv-00304-KJM Document 83 Filed 03/10/10 Page 1 of 6
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 Because oral argument will not be of material

assistance, the court orders the matter submitted on the briefs.

E.D. Cal. L. R. 230(g).

2009. Respondent James Walker (“Respondent”) opposes the

motion. For the reasons set forth below,2 petitioner’s motion

for reconsideration is DENIED.

BACKGROUND

The court adopts the factual and procedural background set

forth by the magistrate judge. (See Order, filed December 16,

2009, at 2-6.)

STANDARD

A magistrate judge may hear and determine discovery motions

that are before the District Court. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).

Pursuant to E.D. Local Rule 72-303(f), a magistrate judge’s nondispositive order shall be upheld unless “clearly erroneous or

contrary to law.” 

ANALYSIS

In his habeas petition, petitioner challenges his

conviction for murder of his wife. Specifically, petitioner

brings two claims: (1) that he was denied his sixth amendment

right to present a complete defense; and (2) that counsel was

constitutionally ineffective in failing to make an adequately

supported motion for dynamic testing of the snowmobile involved

in his wife’s death. The magistrate judge denied petitioner’s

discovery request for dynamic testing on the grounds that had

failed to show the requisite good cause to support the request. 

Petitioner Franklin moves for reconsideration of the

magistrate judge’s denial of his discovery request. Petitioner

claims that in denying discovery, the magistrate judge applied a

Case 2:05-cv-00304-KJM Document 83 Filed 03/10/10 Page 2 of 6
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

higher standard than required under Rule 6 of the Rules

Governing Section 2254 cases (“Rule 6”). Specifically,

petitioner argues that the magistrate judge required a showing

of a prima facie case in order to permit discovery when Rule 6

requires only a showing that petitioner may be entitled to

relief after the facts are developed. Respondent contends that

the magistrate judge applied the correct standard and properly

concluded that the disallowance of petitioner’s discovery

request not prejudice petitioner.

“A party shall be entitled to invoke the processes of

discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure if ... the

judge in the exercise of his discretion and for good cause

grants leave to do so.” Rules Governing 2254 Cases, Rule 6(a)

28 U.S.C. § 2254. However, “a habeas petitioner does not enjoy

the presumptive entitlement to discovery of a traditional

litigant.” Rich v. Calderon, 187 F.3d 1064, 1068 (9th Cir.

1999) (citing Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899, 903-05 (1997)). 

“Rather, discovery is available only in the discretion of the

court and for good cause shown.” Rich, 187 F.3d at 1068. “Good

cause” is established “where specific allegations before the

court show reason to believe that petitioner may, if the facts

are fully developed, be able to demonstrate that he is . . .

entitled to relief.” Bracy, 520 U.S. at 908-09. 

As a threshold matter, the “essential elements” of all of

the claims must be identified in order to evaluate whether the

petitioner can demonstrate good cause. Bracy, 520 U.S. at 904;

United States v. Turner, 104 F.3d 1180, 1184 (9th Cir. 1997). 

In this case, both of petitioner’s claims require a showing of 

Case 2:05-cv-00304-KJM Document 83 Filed 03/10/10 Page 3 of 6
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

prejudice. First, to establish a claim for ineffective counsel,

the facts petitioner hopes to develop must demonstrate that

“there is a reasonable probability that the verdict would have

been different.” Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365, 375

(1987). Similarly, to establish a claim that denial of a

discovery request infringed on petitioner’s rights to present a

complete defense, he must establish, inter alia, that the

exclusion of this evidence had a “substantial and injurious

effect on the verdict.” Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 637

(1993). 

In the order denying petitioner’s discovery request, the

magistrate judge concluded that petitioner failed to show that

the absence of the discovery would have a substantial and

injurious effect on the verdict. At petitioner’s criminal

trial, the prosecution claimed that petitioner killed his wife

by staging a snowmobile accident. Part of the prosecution’s

theory was based on expert testimony providing that in

snowmobile accidents, individuals generally fall off of the side

of the snowmobile or go over the handlebars, while petitioner

and his wife were found behind the snowmobile. At trial,

petitioner presented the testimony of the Richard DeRosa

(“DeRosa”), the builder of petitioner’s custom snowmobile, to

counter this claim. DeRosa testified how he built the

snowmobile, how it differed from other snowmobiles, and how he

thought the snowmobile performed on the day of the accident. He

was also allowed to manipulate the snowmobile in front of the

jury. DeRosa also testified that based on his technical

knowledge, his familiarity with the snowmobile, and his

Case 2:05-cv-00304-KJM Document 83 Filed 03/10/10 Page 4 of 6
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

inspection of the machine after it was in police custody, it was

his opinion the accident happened substantially as petitioner

claimed it did: petitioner had fallen off of the back due to the

specific design. However, despite this strong evidence, the

jury found petitioner guilty. Petitioner claims that a video

recreation of the accident would have “substantially greater

weight” in refuting evidence against him than DeRosa’s testimony

did. However, the magistrate judge concluded that even though

dynamic testing may have added to this testimony, petitioner

failed to show that the absence of dynamic testing was

substantial and injurious. In particular, the magistrate judge

noted the strength of DeRosa’s testimony as an expert who knew

the particular snowmobile at issue better than anyone. As such,

the magistrate judge found that petitioner failed to demonstrate

that even if he was given access to the snowmobile for

restoration and testing, he would be entitled to relief. 

The court does not find the magistrate judge’s conclusions

clearly erroneous or contrary to law. As noted in the

magistrate judge’s order, because petitioner has asserted claims

that require a showing of prejudice, in order to establish good

cause for discovery, he must demonstrate that the absence of the

evidence sought could have had a substantial and injurious

effect on the verdict. See Brecht, 507 U.S. at 637. Simply

stated, petitioner must show that he could prevail on his habeas

claim if discovery reveals what he anticipates it will. The

magistrate judge concluded that even assuming petitioner was

allowed to restore, test, and videotape the snowmobile as

requested and assuming the videotape depicts what petitioner

Case 2:05-cv-00304-KJM Document 83 Filed 03/10/10 Page 5 of 6
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

anticipates it will, petitioner could not show that the absence

of such evidence had a substantial and injurious effect on the

verdict in light of the other evidence adduced at trial. While

petitioner claims that a “picture is worth a thousand words,” he

has failed to set forth any case law to support his position

that the absence of cumulative evidence constitutes prejudice

where a uniquely qualified expert has testified to the same

effect. (Pet’r. Req. for Reconsideration, filed Dec. 30, 2009,

at 3.) Accordingly, the court cannot conclude the magistrate

judge’s denial of petitioner’s discovery request was clearly

erroneous or contrary to law.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, petitioner’s request for

reconsideration of the magistrate judge’s order is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 9, 2010

Case 2:05-cv-00304-KJM Document 83 Filed 03/10/10 Page 6 of 6