Free Motion for Reconsideration - District Court of California - California

Case 3:07-cv-04804-JSW

Document 15

Filed 05/30/2008

Page 1 of 6

1 EDMUND G. BROWN JR. Attorney General of the State of California 2 DANE R. GILLETTE Chief Assistant Attorney General 3 JULIE L. GARLAND Senior Assistant Attorney General 4 ANYAM. BINSACCA Supervising Deputy Attorney General 5 AMANDA J. MURRAY, State Bar No.223829 Deputy Attorney General 6 455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000 San Francisco, CA 94102-7004 7 Telephone: (415) 703-5741 Fax: (415) 703-5843 8 Email: [email protected] 9 Attorneys for Respondent 10
11

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
GEORGE RUIZ,

12
13

14 C07-4804 JSW Petitioner, 16
RESPONDENT'S REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF RUIZ'~ REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY BECAUSE IT DOES NOT COMPLY WITH 28 U.S.c. §2254

15

v.
17
. ROBERT HOREL, Warden,

18 Respondent. 19 20 21 22
INTRODUCTION

Judge:

The Honorable Jeffrey S. White

California inmate George Ruiz, serving a life sentence for murder, filed a Petition for Writ

23 of Habeas Corpus under 28 V.S.C § 2254 challenging the California Board of Parole Hearings' 24 2006 decision denying him parole. In the only claim relevant here, Ruiz alleges that the Board 25 has a no-parole policy for inmates housed in the Pelican Bay State Prison's secure housing unit.

26 (See generally, Petn.) To help prove his claim, Ruiz filed a successful motion to conduct
27 discovery: (1) requiring Respondent to produce the names and prison identification numbers of 28 all inmates who are "similarly situated," i.e., inmates who have an indeterminate term in the
Req. for Reconsideration of May 28,2008 Order
Ruiz v. Horel C07-4804 JSW

1.

--

--

--------_._.- -

-

-

-------_

..--_.--

Case 3:07-cv-04804-JSW

Document 15

Filed 05/30/2008

Page 2 of 6

1 prison's secure housing unit for administrative reasons, are serving term-to-life sentences, and 2 are eligible for parole; (2) granting Ruiz permission to contact and obtain declarations and

3 documentary evidence from" similarly situated inmates; and (3) requiring Respondent to produce 4 parole consideration hearing transcripts for all similarly situated inmates from January 1, 1990 to 5 present. (See Petitioner's Notice of Motion and Motion to Conduct Limited Discovery at p.8.) 6 The order granting discovery should be vacated because it does not comply with the 7 Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). Under AEDPA, only 8 documents this Court may review in determining whether Ruiz is entitled to federal habeas relief 9 are those that were before the state courts, and the parties have already provided this Court with 10 these documents. Moreover, requiring Respondent to produce the information in Ruiz's request 11 is unduly burdensome. 12 13 14 15 16

ARGUMENT
L

Ruiz's Discovery Request Is Improper Order Because in Reviewing the State Courts' Decisions Under AEDPA, the Court Must Look Only at the Record that Was Before the State Court.
Ruiz's discovery request is contrary to law because it fails to consider the limited scope of

17 this Court's habeas review of state court decisions under AEDPA. Since Congress enacted 18 AEDP A, "the availability of federal habeas relief for prisoners contesting their detention after 19 state adjudication on the merits" has been "markedly reduce[d]." Crater v. Galaza, 491 F.3d 20 21 22 23 24 25 1119, 1122 (9th Cir. 2007). Under AEDP A, it is well settled that federal habeas relief is only available where a state court ruling denying habeas relief was (1) contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, Supreme Court law, or (2) based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented at the State Court proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). The Supreme Court has made clear that in conducting an AEDP A review of the state courts' decisions, a federal court may only consider the state court record. Holland v. Jackson, 542 U.S.

26 649,652 (2004) ("whether a state court's decision was unreasonable must be assessed in light of 27 the record the [state] court had before it"); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 348 (2003) 28 (reasonableness of state court's factual finding assessed "in light of the record before the court");
Req. for Reconsideration of May 28, 2008 Order

Ruiz v. Horel
C07-4804 JSW

2

Case 3:07-cv-04804-JSW

Document 15

Filed 05/30/2008

Page 3 of 6

1 Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685, 697 nA (2002) (declining to consider evidence not presented to state
2 court in determining whether its decision was contrary to federal law). 3 4 Here, Ruiz's discovery request seeks to expand the record and present new evidence to this Court that was not considered by the state courts. Indeed, the Court's order fails to give AEDPA

5 deference to the state courts' express rejection ofRuiz's allegation that the Board has a no-parole' 6 policy for inmates housed in the secure housing unit when it upheld the Board's decision denying 7 him parole. (See Answer to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [Answer] at Ex. G, First 8 Appellate District's Court Order, p. 5.) The state court specifically found that there was no 9 evidence supporting Ruiz's claim. (ld.) Rather, the state court found that the Board "carefully 10 considered Ruiz's individual circumstances in assessing his suitability for parole" and that the 11 Board had suggested several' self-help programming options used by other inmates housed in the 12 secure housing unit to help Ruiz improve his chances for parole in the future. (ld.) Accordingly, 13 to the extent the some-evidence standard applies, because there is some evidence in the record 14 supporting the state courts' decision denying Ruiz's claim, there is no good cause for allowing 15 Ruiz to conduct additional discovery. Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455 (1985) (applying 16 the some-evidence test in the prison disciplinary context). Moreover, even if this Court could 17 independently review the evidence, the Court is limited to the record that was before the state 18 courts and any additional evidence would be irrelevant under the some-evidence standard of 19 review. As such, Respondent respectfully requests that the Court vacate its Order. 20 21 22 23 24 Under Rule 5 ofthe Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the respondent is required to provide relevant portions of the state court proceedings. Rule 5 provides that an
II.

Respondent Has Provided the Relevant State Documents Under Rule 5 of the Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.

25 answer to a habeas petition "must [] indicate what transcripts (of pretrial, trial, sentencing, or 26 post-conviction proceedings) are available." Further, the respondent must attach relevant 27 portions ofthe transcripts from the state court proceedings to the answer. The rule does not 28 require Respondent to submit documents that were not provided to the state courts for resolution
Req. for Reconsideration of May 28, 2008 Order Ruiz v. Horel C07-4804 JSW

3

Case 3:07-cv-04804-JSW

Document 15

Filed 05/30/2008

Page 4 of 6

1 ofRuiz's claims. This distinction is understandable when one considers that Rule 5 acts as the 2 mechanism for providing the district court the documents necessary to conduct an AEDPA 3 review ofthe state courts' decision. See Flamer v. Chaffinch, 774 F.Supp. 211, 215 nA (D.Dei. 4 1991). Without the relevant state court documents, the district court would be unable to

5 determine whether the state courts' decision was contrary to or an unreasonable application of 6 clearly established federa11aw. But, as stated above, AEDPA prohibits the district court from 7 reviewing anything except the record before the state court in making this determination. 8 Accordingly, the rule does not, and indeed cannot, require the respondent to submit records that 9 were not before the state court. Respondent filed the state court dispositions (Answer at Exs.

10 F-H) and thus, complied with its obligations under Ru1e 5. As such, this Court's order should be
11 vacated. 12

IL
Ruiz's Discovery-Request Is Unduly Burdensome. Requiring Respondent to comply with Ruiz's discovery request is excessively burdensome.

13
14

15 In order to comply with Ruiz's discovery request, prison staffwill have to review each inmate 16 currently housed in the secure housing unit (of which there are approximately 1100) and 17 determine whether they are housed in that unit for administrative reasons, if they are serving a 18 term-to-life sentence, and if they are eligible for parole. Moreover, Board staff will need to copy 19 the parole hearing transcript for each of these inmates for the past 18 years (1990 to present) and 20 provide them to Respondent's counsel." Then, the transcripts will need to be reviewed by 21 counsel and a copy will need to be produced to Ruiz. The entire process will take many days. a validated

22 Finally, there are institutional safety and security concerns with allowing Ruiz 23 24 25

Mexican Mafia gang member (Petn. at Ex. D, pp. 19-20) - the opportunity to contact and collect declarations and documentary evidence from other inmates housed in the prison's secure

1. Further, it is unclear whether Ruiz' s discovery request applies only to inmates housed in 27 the Pelican Bay State Prison secure housing unit (where Ruiz is currently incarcerated) or whether the request applies to all secure housirig units within the California Department of Corrections and 28 Rehabilitation.
Req. for Reconsideration of May 28, 2008 Order

26

Ruiz v. Harel C07-4804 JSW

4

Case 3:07-cv-04804-JSW

Document 15

Filed 05/30/2008

Page 5 of 6

1 housing unit. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, §§ 3023,3341.5, subd. (c)) This entire process would be 2 3 4 exceedingly time consuming, excessively burdensome, and potentially threatening to the prison's safety and security especially when balanced with the fact that these documents are not

properly before the Court under AEDPA.

5
6

CONCLUSION
The District Court's order is contrary to law because it exceeds the proper scope offederal

7 habeas review under AEDPA and the parties have already provided all the documents necessary 8 to determine whether the state court decisions were contrary to, or an unreasonable application 9 of, clearly established federal law. Further, the District Court's order is unduly burdensome. As

10 the order is contrary to law, Respondent requests that the order be vacated. 11 12 Dated: May 30, 2008 Respectfully submitted, EDMUND G. BROWN JR. Attorney General of the State of California DANE R. GILLETTE Chief Assistant Attorney General JULIE L. GARLAND Senior Assistant Attorney General \ ANYAM. BINSACCA Supervising Deputy Attorney General

13
14 15 16 17 18

19
20

21
22 23
40259034.wpd

24 25

SF2008400470

26 27
28
Req. for Reconsideration of May 28, 2008 Order Ruiz v. Horel CO? -4804 JSW

5

Case 3:07-cv-04804-JSW

Document 15

Filed 05/30/2008

Page 6 of 6

DECLARATION OF SERVICE BY U.S. MAIL
Case Name: No.:

Ruiz v, Borel

C07-4804 JSW

I declare: I am employed in the Office of the Attorney General, which is the office of a member of the California State Bar, at which member's direction this service is made. I am 18 years of age or older and not a party to this matter. I am familiar with the business practice at the Office of the Attorney General for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. In accordance with that practice, correspondence placed in the internal mail collection system at the Office of the Attorney General is deposited with the United States 'Postal Service that same day in the ordinary course of business. On May 30, 2008, I served the attached

RESPONDENT'S REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF RUIZ'S REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY BECAUSE IT DOES NOT COMPLY WITH 28 U.S.C. §2254
by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, in the internal mail collection system at the Office ofthe Attorney General at 455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000, San Francisco, CA 94102-7004, addressed as follows:

George Ruiz, B-82089 Pelican Bay State Prison P.O. Box 7500 Crescent City, CA 95532 in pro per
I declare under penalty of perjury. under the laws of the State of California the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on May 30, 2008, at San Francisco, California.

M.M. Argarin Declarant
40260230.wpd

Signature

.