Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05122/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05122-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

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 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CARL F. HARRISON, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

MIKE KNOWLES, )

)

Respondent. )

)

___________________________________ )

CV F 03-5122 LJO WMW HC

ORDER DENYING MOTION

FOR DISCOVERY AND

EVIDENTIARY HEARING

[Doc. 63]

ORDER DENYING MOTION

FOR DISCOVERY,

EVIDENTIARY HEARING,

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

AND TO RECUSE JUDGE

O’NEILL

[Doc. 69]

Petitioner is a state prisoner who is proceeding pro se on a petition for writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in this court. 

On June 28, 2007, Petitioner filed a motion seeking discovery and an evidentiary

hearing. Unlike other civil litigation, a habeas corpus petitioner is not entitled to broad

discovery. Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899, 117 S.Ct. 1793, 1796-97 (1997); Harris v. Nelson,

394 U.S. 286, 295, 89 S.Ct. 1082, 1088-89 (1969). Although discovery is available pursuant

to Rule 6, it is only granted at the court’s discretion, and upon a showing of good cause. 

Case 1:03-cv-05122-OWW-WMW Document 74 Filed 01/10/08 Page 1 of 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 2

Bracy, 117 S.Ct. 1793, 1797; McDaniel v. United States Dist. Court (Jones), 127 F.3d 886,

888 (9th Cir. 1997); Jones v. Wood, 114 F.3d 1002, 1009 (9th Cir. 1997); Rule 6(a) of the

Rules Governing Section 2254. The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 6 of the Rules

Governing Section 2254 Cases emphasize that Rule 6 was not intended to extend to habeas

corpus petitioners, as a matter of right, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure’s broad discovery

provisions. Rule 6, Advisory Committee Notes (quoting Harris, 394 U.S. at295, 89 S.Ct. at

1089). In this case, the court finds no good cause for the granting of discovery. Because of

his duty to exhaust state judicial remedies, Petitioner has not demonstrated that he can

properly attempt to “prove” factual matters to this court which have not previously been

presented to the state court. Hence, Petitioner has not shown a basis for the type of discovery

he seeks to make into governmental and private records. Accordingly, Petitioner’s request for

discovery is DENIED.

Rule 8(a) provides that where a petition is not dismissed at a previous stage in the

proceeding, the judge, after the answer and transcripts and record of the state court

proceedings are filed, shall, upon review of those proceedings, determine whether an

evidentiary hearing is required. The purpose of an evidentiary hearing is to resolve the merits

of a factual dispute. An evidentiary hearing on a claim is required where it is clear from the

petition that: (1) the allegations, if established, would entitle the petitioner to relief; and (2)

the state court trier of fact has not reliably found the relevant facts. See, Hendricks v.

Vasquez, 974 F.2d 1099, 1103 (9 Cir.1992). As the function of an evidentiary hearing is to

th

try issues of fact, Townsend v. Swain 372 U.S. 293, 309 (1963)(overruled in part by Keeney

v. Tamayo-Reyes, 504 U.S. 1, 112 S.Ct. 1715 (1993)), such a hearing is unnecessary when

only issues of law are raised. Id. 

As the court has yet to review the merits of Petitioner’s claim, it is unable to determine

whether there is a disputed issue of fact that requires an evidentiary hearing. Following a

thorough review of the petition’s merits, the court will sua sponte issue an order for an

Case 1:03-cv-05122-OWW-WMW Document 74 Filed 01/10/08 Page 2 of 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 3

evidentiary hearing should it find one necessary. Accordingly, the request for an evidentiary

hearing is DENIED.

On December 3, 2007, Petitioner filed a motion requesting discovery, an evidentiary

hearing, appointment of counsel, and the recusal of District Judge O’Neill. These matters

have all been previously addressed in the prior orders of this court and are DENIED for the

reasons stated therein.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 9, 2008 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

bl0dc4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05122-OWW-WMW Document 74 Filed 01/10/08 Page 3 of 3