Opinion ID: 723348
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Selective Prosecution and Government Conspiracy

Text: 11 Petitioner contends that the district court erred in denying his § 2255 motion without holding an evidentiary hearing regarding his claims that the government conspired against him and failed to disclose exculpatory evidence as required by Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963), and engaged in selective prosecution. In support of his Brady claim, petitioner merely states that complete discovery production may exonerate [him] of the charges convicted, and the value of such production outweighs any technicality the Court has relied on for the denial of the discovery. Not only does he fail to specify what kind of exculpatory evidence the government allegedly suppressed, he fails to allege that any exculpatory evidence even exists. Accordingly, petitioner is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing regarding the government's alleged conspiracy to withhold exculpatory information. Kyles v. Whitley, 115 S.Ct. 1555, 1565 (1995). 12 To succeed on a claim of selective prosecution, the defendant must show both that prosecutorial selection had discriminatory effect and that it was motivated by discriminatory purpose. United States v. Gutierrez, 990 F.2d 472, 475 (9th Cir.1992) (To establish a prima facie case of selective prosecution, a defendant must show both (1) that others similarly situated have not been prosecuted, and (2) that the prosecution is based on an impermissible motive, i.e., discriminatory purpose or intent.). Petitioner fails to allege any facts that support a claim of selective prosecution. He does not allege he is being prosecuted because of his membership in an identifiable group, i.e., on the basis of his gender, race, national origin or religion, or for exercising a particular constitutional right. He only alleges that he was prosecuted and the true culprit--Pourat--was not. The district court did not err in denying petitioner's request for an evidentiary hearing on petitioner's selective prosecution claim.