Simpson v. The People Of The State Of California
Filing
42
ORDER Denying Petitioner's 38 Motion to Compel Discovery signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 05/20/2010. (Flores, E)
<![CDATA[
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
U . S . D is t r ic t C o u r t E. D . C a lifo r n ia cd
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
LEE WAYNE SIMPSON,
) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) ) FERNANDO GONZALEZ, ) ) Respondent. ) ____________________________________)
1:09-CV-00896 LJO GSA HC ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY [Doc. #38]
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On April 9, 2010, Petitioner filed a motion requesting a subpoena pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 45(a). Petitioner stated he required a subpoena for the production of documentary evidence. The Court construed his motion as a motion for discovery and denied it on April 20, 2010. On April 26, 2010, Petitioner filed a motion to compel discovery. Respondent filed an opposition to said motion on April 27, 2010. As noted by Respondent, the request is essentially a reformulation of the first. Petitioner seeks to open discovery in this matter. "A habeas 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, 903-05 (1997). Rule 6(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides that "[a] judge may, for good cause, authorize a 1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
party to conduct discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and may limit the extent of discovery." See also Rich v. Calderon, 187 F.3d 1064, 1068 (9th Cir.1999) ("[D]iscovery is available only in the discretion of the court and for good cause shown"). Further, Rule 6(b) states that the party requesting discovery "must provide reasons for the request" and inter alia, "must specify any requested documents." As the Court previously determined, there is no showing of good cause to open discovery in this case. The case has been pending since May 21, 2009, and is fully briefed with the exception of the traverse. Petitioner fails to state why discovery is necessary now. Further, his request lacks any specificity; rather, Petitioner seeks to undertake an evidentiary expedition in requesting basically anything and everything having to do with his underlying conviction. This is not permissible. Accordingly, the request to conduct discovery is DENIED with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 6i0kij
May 20, 2010
/s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
U . S . D is t r ic t C o u r t E. D . C a lifo r n ia cd
2
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
