Hopson #291602 v. Thornell et al

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
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Dejuan Markeiss Hopson,
Petitioner,
v.
Ryan Thornell, et al.,
Respondents.
No. CV-26-02598-PHX-SMB (DMF)
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner’s Motion to Stay Proceedings,
Preserve and Develop Newly Discovered Evidence, Authorize Discovery, Expand the
Record, and Request an Evidentiary Hearing (the “Motion”) (Doc. 17). Respondents filed
a response to the Motion (“Response”) (Doc. 18). Petitioner has not filed a reply in support
of the Motion, and the time to do so has expired.
This matter is on referral to the undersigned for further proceedings and a report and
recommendation pursuant to Rules 72.1 and 72.2 of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure
(Doc. 5 at 5). An order regarding the Motion falls within the scope of the referral to the
undersigned (Id.).
Upon careful consideration of the Motion, Response, the record in this matter, and
applicable law, the Court will grant in part the Motion insofar as allowing Petitioner
another opportunity to file his reply in support of his pro se Petition Under 28 U.S.C § 2254
for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (Non-Death Penalty) (“Petition”)
and will otherwise deny the motion. Additionally and despite that Respondents have
Case 2:26-cv-02598-SMB-DMF Document 19 Filed 10/13/26 Page 1 of 13

- 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
complied with their obligation to file pertinent transcripts and portions of the state court
record, the Court will exercise its discretion and for case management purposes will order
that Respondents additionally file and mail to Plaintiff the 5/10/19 suppression hearing
transcript conducted under different cause number CR2018–104563.
I. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL POSTURE
On April 7, 2026, Petitioner Dejuan Markeiss Hopson (“Petitioner” and/or
“Hopson”) initiated these proceedings by filing the Petition directed to Petitioner’s
convictions and sentences for two counts of misconduct involving weapons in Maricopa
County Superior Court case number CR-2018-139646-002 (Doc. 1).
As summarized by the Arizona Court of Appeals in confirming Petitioner’s
convictions:
In August 2018, a trooper with the Arizona Department of Public Safety
stopped Hopson for failing to remain within a traffic lane. See A.R.S. § 28–
729(1) (requiring a driver to remain “‘as nearly as practicable’” within one
lane). Although Hopson denied having any weapons in the vehicle, the
trooper saw and seized an AR-15 pistol from near the front driver’s seat. The
only other occupant of the vehicle, Hopson’s girlfriend, denied any
knowledge of the pistol. At the time, Hopson was prohibited from possessing
weapons as a condition of his felony probation. His partial fingerprint was
later found on the pistol.
(Doc. 12-1 at 561; State v. Hopson, No. 1 CA-CR 20-0444, 2021 WL 5002366, at *1 (Ariz.
Ct. App. Oct. 28, 2021)).1 Ultimately, Petitioner was sentenced to a total of twelve (12)
years’ imprisonment in Maricopa County Superior Court case number CR-2018-139646-
002 (Doc. 12-1 at 453-62, 465-76, 636-41).
As construed by the Court in screening the Petition, Petitioner raises four grounds
for relief:
1 The appellate court’s stated facts are entitled to the presumption of correctness. See 28
U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1); Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765, 769 (1995) (per curiam) (“In habeas
proceedings in federal courts, the factual findings of state courts are presumed to be
correct.”); Runningeagle v. Ryan, 686 F.3d 758, 763 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (rejecting argument
that the statement of facts in an Arizona Supreme Court opinion should not be afforded the
presumption of correctness).
Case 2:26-cv-02598-SMB-DMF Document 19 Filed 10/13/26 Page 2 of 13

- 3 -
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
In Ground One, Petitioner contends his convictions were obtained in
violation of his Fourth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights because the
trial court abused its discretion in denying Petitioner’s motion to suppress.
He also claims he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his
attorney did not file a special action challenging the trial court’s ruling.
In Ground Two, Petitioner alleges his convictions were obtained in violation
of his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights because the State
knowingly used “material perjured and[/]or misleading testimony” to obtain
the grand jury indictment, which “ultimately lead to prosecutorial
misconduct.” Petitioner also contends he received ineffective assistance of
counsel because “the grand jury defects should have and could have been
rooted out and challenged” but his attorney failed to “review, prepare, and
pursue the infirm[i]ties of the grand jury proceedings.”
In Ground Three, Petitioner asserts his convictions and sentences were
obtained in violation of his Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process and
fundamental fairness because “the sentence as imposed is not in accordance
to state law.” He also claims he received ineffective assistance of counsel
because his attorney “improperly permitted Petitioner to admit to prior felony
convictions by stipulating to being on release at the time of the offense.”
In Ground Four, Petitioner contends his convictions were obtained in
violation of his Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process, equal
protection, and fundamental fairness because the trial judge was “inherently
biased against the Petitioner.” He also asserts he received ineffective
assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to “object and challenge the
judge[’]s actions.”
(Doc. 5 at 2; see Doc. 1).
On June 15, 2026, Respondents filed a Limited Answer to Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus (“Limited Answer”), in which Respondents argue that the Petition is
untimely and Petitioner’s grounds for relief are procedurally defaulted without excuse
(Doc. 12).
Respondent attached the following fifty-seven exhibits to its Limited Answer,
including jury trial transcripts other than voir dire (see Doc. 12 at 2-3, 27-29; Doc. 12-1):
Exhibit A. Indictment; Exhibit B. Allegation of historical prior felony convictions; Exhibit
C. Allegation offenses committed while on probation; Exhibit D. Allegations offenses
Case 2:26-cv-02598-SMB-DMF Document 19 Filed 10/13/26 Page 3 of 13

- 4 -
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
committed while on release; Exhibit E. Motion to suppress; Exhibit F. Response to motion
to suppress; Exhibit G. Reply to response to motion to suppress; Exhibit H. Reporter
transcript: Suppression hearing (08/23/19); Exhibit I. Reporter transcript: Jury trial
(10/16/19, a.m.); Exhibit J. Reporter transcript: Jury trial (10/16/19, p.m.); Exhibit K.
Reporter transcript: Jury trial (10/17/19); Exhibit L. Reporter transcript: Sentencing
hearing (08/28/20); Exhibit M. Reporter transcript: Sentencing hearing (09/01/22); Exhibit
N. Opening brief in 1 CA-CR 20-0444; Exhibit O. Answering brief and cross-appeal
opening brief in 1 CA-CR 20-0444; Exhibit P. Reply brief and cross-appeal answering
brief in 1 CA-CR 20 0444; Exhibit Q. Cross-appeal reply brief in 1 CA-CR 20-0444;
Exhibit R. Arizona Court of Appeals memorandum decision in 1 CA-CR 20-0444; Exhibit
S. Petition for review in CR-21-0358-PR; Exhibit T. Order denying petition for review in
CR-21-0358-PR; Exhibit U. Mandate in 1 CA-CR 20-0444; Exhibit V. Anders brief in 1
CA-CR 23-0071; Exhibit W. Appellant’s supplemental brief in 1 CA-CR 23-0071; Exhibit
X. Appellee’s supplemental brief in 1 CA-CR 23-0071; Exhibit Y. Arizona Court of
Appeals memorandum decision in 1 CA-CR 23-0071; Exhibit Z. Mandate in 1 CA-CR 23-
0071; Exhibit AA. Notice of post-conviction relief (09/28/20); Exhibit BB. Trial court
minute entry (10/20/20); Exhibit CC. Trial court minute entry (03/09/22) Exhibit DD.
Notice of post-conviction relief (04/05/22); Exhibit EE. Petition for post-conviction relief
(04/05/22); Exhibit FF. Notice of post-conviction relief (05/03/22) Exhibit GG. Notice of
post-conviction relief (06/30/22); Exhibit HH. Petition for post-conviction relief (06/30/22)
Exhibit II. Trial court minute entry (09/27/22); Exhibit JJ. Notice of appeal in 1 CA-CR
22-0461; Exhibit KK. Order in 1 CA-CR 22-0461; Exhibit LL. Letter in 1 CA-CR 22-
0471; Exhibit MM. Order in 1 CA-CR 22-0471; Exhibit NN. Letter in 1 CA-CR 22-0480;
Exhibit OO. Order in 1 CA-CR 22-0480; Exhibit PP. Notice of post-conviction relief
(09/28/22); Exhibit QQ. Trial court minute entry (10/19/22); Exhibit RR. Petition for post-
conviction relief (02/15/23); Exhibit SS. Trial court minute entry (02/21/23); Exhibit TT.
Notice of post-conviction relief (09/24/24); Exhibit UU. Trial court minute entry
(10/10/24); Exhibit VV. Notice of completion of post-conviction review by counsel;
Case 2:26-cv-02598-SMB-DMF Document 19 Filed 10/13/26 Page 4 of 13

- 5 -
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
Exhibit WW. Trial court minute entry (12/12/24); Exhibit XX. Trial court minute entry
(02/11/25); Exhibit YY. Maricopa County Superior Court docket sheet (No. CR2018-
139646-002); Exhibit ZZ. Arizona Court of Appeals docket sheet (No. 1 CA-CR 20-0444);
Exhibit AAA. Arizona Supreme Court docket sheet (No. CR-21-0358-PR); Exhibit BBB.
Arizona Court of Appeals docket sheet (No. 1 CA-CR 23-0071); Exhibit CCC. Arizona
Court of Appeals docket sheet (No. 1 CA-CR 22-0461); Exhibit DDD. Arizona Court of
Appeals docket sheet (No. 1 CA-CR 22-0471); Exhibit EEE. Arizona Court of Appeals
docket sheet (No. 1 CA-CR 22-0480).
Noteworthy is that Exhibit H is the official reporter transcript of the suppression
hearing conducted on August 23, 2019, over which the Honorable Kathleen Mead, trial
court judge, presided in the case which is the subject of the Petition (Doc. 12-1 at 42-120).
The only available transcripts not furnished with the Limited Answer are reported
by Respondents to be for the: Evidentiary hearing on 08/20/18; Status conference on
09/06/18; Initial pretrial conference on 10/05/18; Comprehensive pretrial conference on
11/05/18; Settlement conference on 03/22/19; Final trial management conference on
05/01/19; Suppression hearing on 05/10/19; Trial management conference on 10/10/19;
Jury trial on 10/14/19 (voir dire); Sentencing continuance on 01/17/20; and Status
conference on 07/20/22 (Doc. 12 at 2-3). Regarding the 5/10/19 suppression hearing,
Respondents state that “[t]his suppression hearing was conducted under a different cause
number, CR2018–104563” and the “matter was dismissed after the trial court granted the
suppression motion” (Id. at 2, footnote 1). Respondents state that any of the available
transcripts listed by them “can be furnished on demand” in response to an order of the
Court (Id. at 2).
Regarding the exhibits attached to the Limited Answer, Respondents reported in
their Limited Answer:
As required by Rule 5 of the Rules Governing 28 U.S.C. § 2254 cases,
Respondents submit as exhibits all relevant pleadings and orders from
Hopson’s state court proceedings. Rule 5(c) also requires Respondents to
Case 2:26-cv-02598-SMB-DMF Document 19 Filed 10/13/26 Page 5 of 13

- 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
“indicate what transcripts (of pretrial, trial, sentencing or post-conviction
proceedings) are available, when they can be furnished, and what
proceedings have been recorded but not transcribed.”
Respondents are only required to attach those parts of the transcript that they
consider relevant. Id.
(Doc. 12 at 2-3).
Petitioner sought and obtained from the Court an extension of time to file a reply in
support of his Petition (Docs. 13, 15). Petitioner has not filed a reply in support of the
Petition but instead filed his pending Motion before reply time expired (Doc. 15).
II. PETITIONER’S MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS, PRESERVE AND
DEVELOP NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE, AUTHORIZE DISCOVERY,
EXPAND THE RECORD, AND REQUEST AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING (THE
“MOTION”) (Doc. 17)
Petitioner’s pending Motion appears to be a boilerplate template likely to have been
prepared by a non-lawyer lacking an accurate and complete understanding of the law in
this procedural context (Doc. 17). The boilerplate template contains a panoply of requests
(Id.). On the template, Petitioner hand-wrote some information identifying himself and
about his case in the several blank spaces and lines provided (Id.). The materials requested,
relief sought, and reasons provided in the type-written template portions are extremely
broad and general (Id.). Consistent with the kitchen-sink approach of the template,
Petitioner requests that the Court order the following: (1) stay or otherwise hold in
abeyance further proceedings, (2) extend all applicable deadlines, (3) grant leave to
conduct discovery, (4) authorize discovery of the courtroom video and audio recordings
including of a May 10, 2019, proceeding in a different case than the case that is subject of
this habeas matter, (5) order that relevant evidence be preserved, (6) permit petitioner to
expand the record, (7) appoint investigative assistance or counsel, (8) permit petitioner to
supplement his petition or the record after newly discovered evidence has been obtained,
(9) hold an evidentiary hearing if material factual disputes remain, and (10) grant any
Case 2:26-cv-02598-SMB-DMF Document 19 Filed 10/13/26 Page 6 of 13

- 7 -
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
further relief as the Court sees proper (Id.).
The template portion of the Motion includes general assertions that the Court should
grant the relief requested because “newly discovered, previously unavailable, insufficiently
investigated, and/or presently obtainable evidence that is material to the constitutional
claims presented” (Id. at 1), that there is good cause for discovery (Id. at 4), that Petitioner
has a substantial need for investigative assistance and also requests counsel if Petitioner
qualifies for such (Id. at 5), and that an evidentiary hearing is appropriate for Petitioner to
present additional evidence (Id. at 7). Petitioner added in a handwritten place on the
template that courtroom video and audio recordings from a May 10, 2019, evidentiary
hearing regarding a motion to suppress in a different case will show that the presiding trial
court judge in the suppression hearing in the case regarding which these habeas
proceedings relate, the Honorable Kathleen Mead, “was biased in the denial” of
Petitioner’s motion to suppress regarding “the legality of the traffic stop” in the case at
issue in these habeas proceedings (Id. at 3-4). Petitioner also wrote by hand in the template
that discovery will pertain to facts concerning reasonable suspicion, probable cause, and a
biased ruling (Id. at 4). Petitioner handwrote that the factual issues to be developed at an
evidentiary hearing are “proof of legal innocence, proof of wrongful incarceration, and
proof of prejudice and biased judge” (Id. at 7).
In their Response (Doc. 18), Respondents argue that Petitioner is not entitled to a
stay, Petitioner’s claim of newly discovered evidence is a mere fishing expedition,
Petitioner has not shown good cause for discovery, record expansion is unwarranted, and
an evidentiary hearing is unwarranted (Id. at 1-7). Respondents expressly take no position
regarding the appointment of an investigator and do not address the appointment of counsel
request (Id.).
Petitioner has not filed a reply in support of the Motion and his time to do so has
expired.
Upon careful review, Petitioner has not demonstrated that he is presently entitled to
any of the relief requested in the Motion. In fairness to Petitioner, the Court will grant the
Case 2:26-cv-02598-SMB-DMF Document 19 Filed 10/13/26 Page 7 of 13

- 8 -
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
motion in part insofar as allowing Petitioner another opportunity to file a reply in support
of the Petition and will otherwise deny the motion. Additionally and despite that
Respondents have complied with their obligation to file pertinent transcripts and portions
of the state court record, the Court will exercise its discretion and order that Respondents
additionally file and mail to Plaintiff the 5/10/19 suppression hearing transcript conducted
under a different cause number CR2018–104563.
A. State Court Record Materials
In relevant part, Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases (“Rule 5”)
provides:
(c) Contents: Transcripts. The answer must also indicate what transcripts
(of pretrial, trial, sentencing, or post-conviction proceedings) are available,
when they can be furnished, and what proceedings have been recorded but
not transcribed. The respondent must attach to the answer parts of the
transcript that the respondent considers relevant. The judge may order that
the respondent furnish other parts of existing transcripts or that parts of
untranscribed recordings be transcribed and furnished. If a transcript cannot
be obtained, the respondent may submit a narrative summary of the evidence.
(d) Contents: Briefs on Appeal and Opinions. The respondent must also
file with the answer a copy of:
(1) any brief that the petitioner submitted in an appellate court
contesting the conviction or sentence, or contesting an adverse
judgment or order in a post-conviction proceeding;
(2) any brief that the prosecution submitted in an appellate court
relating to the conviction or sentence; and
(3) the opinions and dispositive orders of the appellate court relating
to the conviction or the sentence.
In addition, Rule 7, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, provides authority for the Court
“to expand the record by submitting additional materials relating to the petition.” See also
Rule 10, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases (“A magistrate judge may perform the duties
of a district judge under these rules, as authorized under 28 U.S.C. § 636.”).
Case 2:26-cv-02598-SMB-DMF Document 19 Filed 10/13/26 Page 8 of 13

- 9 -
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
Upon review, the Court finds that Respondents complied with Rule 5.
Nevertheless, both parties appear to believe the 5/10/19 suppression hearing transcript
conducted under a different cause number CR2018–104563 has some relevance to the case
at issue in these habeas proceedings. Thus, the Court will exercise its case management
discretion, including under Rule 7, and will order that Respondents additionally file and
mail to Plaintiff the 5/10/19 suppression hearing transcript conducted under different cause
number CR2018–104563. Because certified transcription is the official record of the
Maricopa County Superior Court, see Arizona Supreme Court Rule 30, and because the
Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases contemplate provision of transcripts when available,
Petitioner’s request for audio and video of any hearing, including 5/10/19 suppression
hearing conducted under a different cause number CR2018–104563, will be denied.
B. Discovery Is Not Warranted
In relevant part, Rule 6 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides:
(a) Leave of Court Required. A judge may, for good cause, authorize a party
to conduct discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and may limit
the extent of discovery. If necessary for effective discovery, the judge must
appoint an attorney for a petitioner who qualifies to have counsel appointed
under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A.
(b) Requesting Discovery. A party requesting discovery must provide reasons
for the request. The request must also include any proposed interrogatories and
requests for admission, and must specify any requested documents.
See also Rule 10 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases (“A magistrate judge may
perform the duties of a district judge under these rules, as authorized under 28 U.S.C.
§ 636.”).
In habeas proceedings, a “petitioner, unlike the usual civil litigant in federal court,
is not entitled to discovery as a matter of ordinary course.” Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S.
899, 904 (1997); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(B)(iii) (exempting habeas proceedings
from initial discovery disclosure). The availability of discovery in habeas proceedings is
governed by Rule 6 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases and is within the Court’s
discretion. Bracy, 520 U.S. at 907-09; Rich v. Calderon, 187 F.3d 1064, 1068 (9th Cir.
Case 2:26-cv-02598-SMB-DMF Document 19 Filed 10/13/26 Page 9 of 13

- 10 -
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
1999). Good cause to allow discovery to proceed in a Section 2254 habeas matter may
exist “where specific allegations before the court show reason to believe that the 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 (quoting Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286, 300 (1969)). However,
“[j]ust as bald assertions and conclusory allegations do not afford a sufficient ground for
an evidentiary hearing, neither do they provide a basis for imposing upon the state the
burden of responding in discovery to every habeas petitioner who wishes to seek such
discovery.” Earp v. Davis, 881 F.3d 1135, 1142-43 (9th Cir. 2018) (internal citations
omitted). The Ninth Circuit has warned that a court “should not allow prisoners to use
federal discovery for fishing expeditions to investigate mere speculation.” Calderon v.
U.S. Dist. Ct. for the N. Dist. of California, 98 F.3d 1102, 1106 (9th Cir. 1996).
Upon careful review, the Court agrees with Respondents that Petitioner has not
shown good cause for the Court to order any of the general categories of discovery sought
by Petitioner. Thus, the Court will deny Petitioner’s request for discovery and related
relief.
C. Appointment Of Counsel Or Investigator And Evidentiary Hearing
“Indigent state prisoners applying for habeas corpus relief are not entitled to
appointed counsel unless the circumstances of a particular case indicate that appointed
counsel is necessary to prevent due process violations.” Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191,
1196 (9th Cir. 1986). However, the Court has discretion to appoint counsel when “the
interests of justice so require.” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B).
Given that no discovery is warranted at this stage of these proceedings, the request
for appointed counsel or an investigator is premature. So is Petitioner’s request for a ruling
regarding whether or not an evidentiary hearing is warranted. Indeed, Rule 8(b), Rules
Governing Section 2254 Cases, provides:
(a) Determining Whether to Hold a Hearing. If the petition is not
dismissed, the judge must review the answer, any transcripts and records of
state-court proceedings, and any materials submitted under Rule 7 to
Case 2:26-cv-02598-SMB-DMF Document 19 Filed 10/13/26 Page 10 of 13

- 11 -
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
determine whether an evidentiary hearing is warranted
Moreover, The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”)
governs Petitioner’s habeas proceedings because Petitioner filed the Petition after April 24,
1996, the date AEDPA became effective. Patterson v. Stewart, 251 F.3d 1243, 1245 (9th
Cir. 2001) (citing Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259, 268 n.3 (2000)). AEDPA imposes “an
express limitation on the power of a federal court to grant an evidentiary hearing” in habeas
proceedings and has “reduced considerably the degree of the district court’s discretion.”
Baja v. Ducharme, 187 F.3d 1075, 1078 (9th Cir. 1999) (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted). Title 28, Section 2254(e)(2) of the United States Code “restricts the
discretion of federal habeas courts to consider new evidence when deciding claims that
were not adjudicated on the merits in state court.” Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170, 186
(2011) (citing Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 420, 427-29 (2000)). Section 2254(e)(2)
provides that if a habeas petitioner:
has failed to develop the factual basis of a claim in State court proceedings,
the court shall not hold an evidentiary hearing on the claim unless the
applicant shows that—
(A) the claim relies on—
(i) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases
on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously
unavailable; or
(ii) a factual predicate that could not have been previously
discovered through the exercise of due diligence; and
(B) the facts underlying the claim would be sufficient to establish by
clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no
reasonable fact-finder would have found the applicant guilty of the
underlying offense.
28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2); see also Ramirez, 596 U.S. at 389 (2022) (“[W]hen a federal
habeas court convenes an evidentiary hearing for any purpose, or otherwise admits or
reviews new evidence for any purpose, it may not consider that evidence on the merits of
Case 2:26-cv-02598-SMB-DMF Document 19 Filed 10/13/26 Page 11 of 13

- 12 -
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
a negligent prisoner’s defaulted claim unless the exceptions in § 2254(e)(2) are satisfied.”).
In short, neither expansion of the record, nor an evidentiary hearing, are necessary when
the existing record clearly shows that a petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief. See
Schriro v. Landrigan, 550 U.S. 465, 474 (2007) (“[I]f the record ... precludes habeas relief,
a district court is not required to hold an evidentiary hearing” or otherwise expand the
record).
Upon review, the Court finds that Petitioner has not demonstrated that appointment
of counsel or an investigator is necessary to prevent a violation of due process or is
otherwise warranted in the interests of justice at this time. The Court will deny without
prejudice Petitioner’s request for appointment of counsel and of an investigator.
Petitioner’s request for an evidentiary hearing is noted and will be reviewed under the
appropriate standards upon conclusion of the Petition briefing. If the Court determines
after review of the Petition, Response, and a to be filed reply in support of the Petition that
an evidentiary hearing in front of the District Judge is warranted, counsel will be appointed
in accordance with Rule 8(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Proceedings.
D. Petitioner is Not Entitled to a Stay
Upon careful review, Petitioner does not argue that the Petition contains any claims
which are unexhausted in state court and for which exhaustion in state court is still possible.
See King v. Ryan, 564 F.3d 1133, 1139-40 (9th Cir. 2009). Nor do such claims appear to
the Court upon review of this Court’s record thus far. Moreover, Petitioner has not
established good cause to stay these habeas proceedings. Further, the Court is providing
an additional opportunity for Petitioner to file a reply in support of the Petition after the
filing of the 5/10/19 suppression hearing transcript conducted under different cause number
CR2018–104563. Thus, Petitioner’s request for a stay is denied.
III. CONCLUSION
The Court will grant in part Petitioner’s Motion to Stay Proceedings, Preserve and
Develop Newly Discovered Evidence, Authorize Discovery, Expand the Record, and
Request an Evidentiary Hearing (“Motion”) (Doc. 17) insofar as granting Petitioner
Case 2:26-cv-02598-SMB-DMF Document 19 Filed 10/13/26 Page 12 of 13

- 13 -
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
another opportunity to file a reply in support of the Petition and will otherwise deny the
Motion. Petitioner is hereby on notice that the Court is not inclined to further extend the
reply deadline. Additionally and despite that Respondents have complied with their
obligation to file pertinent transcripts and portions of the state court record, the Court will
exercise its discretion and for case management purposes will order that Respondents
promptly file with the Court and mail to Plaintiff the 5/10/19 suppression hearing transcript
conducted under different cause number CR2018–104563.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED granting in part Petitioner’s Motion to Stay
Proceedings, Preserve and Develop Newly Discovered Evidence, Authorize Discovery,
Expand the Record, and Request an Evidentiary Hearing (“Motion”) (Doc. 17) insofar as
granting Petitioner another opportunity to file a reply in support of the Petition as set forth
herein and otherwise denying the Motion.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within seven (7) days of the date of this Order,
Respondents shall file with the Court and mail a copy to Plaintiff the 5/10/19 suppression
hearing transcript conducted under different cause number CR2018–104563.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner may file a reply in support of his
Petition no later than forty-five (45) days from the date of this Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED notifying Petitioner that the Court is not inclined to
further extend deadline for Petitioner to file a reply in support of the Petition.
Dated this 13th day of October, 2026.
Case 2:26-cv-02598-SMB-DMF Document 19 Filed 10/13/26 Page 13 of 13