Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-00508/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-00508-19/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Connie Gipson
Respondent
Roberto Herrera
Petitioner

Document Text:

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERTO HERRERA,

Petitioner,

v.

CONNIE GIPSON,

Respondent.

No. 2:12-cv-0508 DAD P

ORDER

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding through counsel with a petition for a writ of 

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On October 19-20, 2015, the undersigned conducted 

an evidentiary hearing on petitioner’s claim that his 2010 guilty plea was involuntary. At that 

hearing, the court heard extensive testimony with respect to petitioner’s allegation that he entered 

a plea of guilty as a result of harassment from correctional officers at High Desert State Prison. 

Thereafter, on December 28, 2015, petitioner filed a document entitled “Motion to Reopen 

Evidentiary Hearing.” Attached to that motion are a 2015 report by the Officer of the Inspector 

General regarding practices at High Desert State Prison from January 1, 2015 to June 30, 2015 

with respect to excessive use of force against inmates; several supporting documents; and two 

2010 Sacramento Bee newspaper articles. Petitioner requests that this court “reopen the 

evidentiary hearing, permit additional discovery, and permit additional testimony” in light of the 

information contained in the exhibits submitted with his motion to reopen. 

Case 2:12-cv-00508-DAD Document 123 Filed 01/15/16 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

2

After reviewing petitioner’s motion and exhibits, the court concludes that petitioner’s 

request to conduct additional discovery and to reopen the evidentiary hearing to introduce 

additional testimony should be denied. The exhibits supporting petitioner’s motion have some 

relevance with respect to the need for an evidentiary hearing in this case in the first instance. 

However, the court has already ordered and conducted such a hearing, at which extensive 

testimony was introduced regarding petitioner’s specific allegations regarding the entry of his 

guilty plea. General allegations concerning High Desert State Prison, which do not involve the 

petitioner, are not directly relevant to petitioner’s claim for federal habeas relief before this court. 

To the extent those are now matters of public record, they will be considered by the court for 

what they are worth in assessing petitioner’s habeas claims. 

Accordingly, good cause appearing, IT IS ORDERED that petitioner’s December 28, 

2015 “Motion to Reopen Evidentiary Hearing” is denied and the February 2, 2016 hearing 

thereon is vacated from this court’s calendar.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 14, 2016 

 DALE A. DROZD

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Mou8(2)

Herrera508.reopen

Case 2:12-cv-00508-DAD Document 123 Filed 01/15/16 Page 2 of 2