(HC) (DP) Riel v. Woodford ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHARLES D. RIEL, No. 2:01-cv-00507-MCE-DB 12 Petitioner, DEATH PENALTY CASE 13 v. ORDER 14 RON BROOMFIELD, Warden, California State Prison at San Quentin, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, a state prisoner under sentence of death, seeks relief through an 18 application for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In bringing the 19 present Request for Reconsideration (ECF No. 602), Petitioner asks this Court to 20 reverse the Magistrate Judge’s July 8, 2020 Order (ECF No. 600) which denied 21 Petitioner’s Motion (ECF No. 590) to vacate the order giving Respondent the right to 22 depose Petitioner. The Magistrate Judge also directed the parties to submit a joint 23 statement concerning the conduct of said deposition and any subsequent evidentiary 24 hearing. 25 In reviewing a magistrate judge’s determination, the assigned judge shall apply 26 the “clearly erroneous or contrary to law” standard of review set forth in Local 27 Rule 303(f), as specifically authorized by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) and 28 1 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).1 Under this standard, the Court must accept the Magistrate 2 Judge’s decision unless it has a “definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been 3 committed.” Concrete Pipe & Prods. of Cal., Inc. v. Constr. Laborers Pension Trust for 4 So. Cal., 508 U.S. 602, 622 (1993). If the Court believes the conclusions reached by the 5 Magistrate Judge were at least plausible, after considering the record in its entirety, the 6 Court will not reverse even if convinced that it would have weighed the evidence 7 differently. Phoenix Eng. & Supply Inc. v. Universal Elec. Co., Inc., 104 F.3d 1137, 1141 8 (9th Cir. 1997). 9 After reviewing the entire file, this Court cannot say that the Magistrate Judge’s 10 decision outlined above were clearly erroneous. As the Magistrate Judge noted, 11 Petitioner argues that his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to investigate and present 12 substantial evidence regarding Petitioner’s organic, developmental, psychological, and 13 alcohol-related impairments, and in failing to prepare and consult with qualified experts. 14 Given those concerns, and the fact that Petitioner’s own background in this regard was 15 consequently at issue, the Magistrate Judge reasonably concluded that Petitioner would 16 have relevant information. The Ninth Circuit has noted that good cause exists for 17 allowing the deposition of a petitioner in a capital case where the petitioner has alleged 18 ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to investigate the petitioner’s family 19 background. Bean v. Calderon, 166 F.R.D. 452, 466 (E.D. Cal. 1996). 20 In addition, while true that Petitioner may raise Fifth Amendment concerns of self- 21 incrimination during such a deposition, the Magistrate Judge recognized that a protective 22 order to guard against any such potentiality was proper, with the Magistrate Judge 23 expressing willingness to be available by phone during the deposition to rule upon 24 objections in that regard that might arise. See Order, ECF No. 600, 5:10-16. Finally, the 25 parties themselves appear to have resolved this concern by agreeing in their 26 1 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) directs the district court judge to “modify or set aside any 27 portion of the magistrate judge’s order found to be clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Similarly, under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), the district judge may reconsider any pretrial order “where it is shown that the 28 magistrate’s order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” 1 || September 8, 2020 Joint Statement (ECF No. 603) that a prior protective order 2 || pertaining to the scope of Petitioner's deposition would be sufficient, and by further 3 || agreeing that the Magistrate Judge would indeed be available to rule upon objections 4 | during Petitioner's deposition. See id. at 2:1-5. 5 For all these reasons, Petitioner’s Request for Reconsideration (ECF No. 602) is 6 | DENIED. 7 IT |S SO ORDERED. 8 | Dated: March 22, 2022 Matar LEK: Whip AX XC - SENIOR UNITED STATES URTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28