Glenn Cornwell, Jr. v. Warden, San Quentin State Prison

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California considers petitioner Glenn Cornwell Jr.’s unopposed motion for an evidentiary hearing and request to expand the record in a capital habeas proceeding. The court finds the motion untimely but grants an extension nunc pro tunc under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b) based on excusable neglect. The court then addresses the standards governing an evidentiary hearing under AEDPA and determines that a hearing is justified regarding Claim 3, which alleges ineffective assistance of trial counsel during the penalty phase.

Holdings

1. The absence of a formal Rule 16 scheduling order did not eliminate the deadline established by the court's prior order, which tied the filing of the evidentiary-hearing motion to completion of the relevant discovery.
2. Petitioner established excusable neglect and good cause, warranting a nunc pro tunc extension of time to file the evidentiary-hearing motion.
3. Petitioner is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel subclaims 3(a) through 3(g), concerning the penalty-phase investigation, mitigation evidence, expert assistance, and related counsel performance.
4. Petitioner is not entitled on the present motion to an evidentiary hearing concerning ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, and he failed to identify authority or specific factual disputes warranting a hearing concerning ineffective assistance of state habeas counsel; however, he may file a second motion addressing the habeas-counsel prong within 30 days.
5. Petitioner's unopposed request to expand the record with the identified exhibits is granted, subject to respondent's ability to challenge admissibility at the evidentiary hearing.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the motion for an evidentiary hearing was untimely despite the absence of a formal discovery scheduling order.
2. Whether petitioner established excusable neglect and good cause under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b) to obtain an extension of time to file the evidentiary-hearing motion.
3. Whether petitioner was entitled to a federal evidentiary hearing on the ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel subclaims in Claim 3.
4. Whether petitioner was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on Claim 34's ineffective-assistance-of-appellate-counsel and ineffective-assistance-of-state-habeas-counsel prongs.
5. Whether petitioner could expand the federal habeas record with the exhibits attached to his motion.

Disposition

other