Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06254/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06254-1/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARIO TORRES, CASE NO. CV-F-04-6254 OWW DLB HC

Petitioner, ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY WITHOUT

vs. PREJUDICE

EDWARD ALAMEDA, JR., Warden, [Doc. 27]

Respondent.

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On August 10, 2005, Petitioner filed a motion for discovery of a police report. Although

discovery is available pursuant to Rule 6, it is only granted at the Court’s discretion, and upon a showing

of good cause. Bracy, 117 S.Ct. at 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. Insofar as Petitioner believes he will have the opportunity to “prove his

innocence” he is mistaken. A habeas corpus proceeding functions much like an ordinary appeal. As

such, one does not proceed to “trial” in federal habeas corpus and, unlike other civil litigation, a habeas

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). 

Here, Petitioner seeks to discover the police report including statements by two individuals. 

Case 1:04-cv-06254-OWW -DLB Document 30 Filed 08/31/05 Page 1 of 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

2

Petitioner has not shown why the police reports are necessary for resolution of the instant petition. Thus,

Petitioner has not demonstrated good cause. In some cases, the Court will grant discovery when it will

aid in developing facts necessary to decide whether to order an evidentiary hearing. In such cases, such

an order often follows the granting of an evidentiary hearing. However, in this case, the Court has yet

to review the petition and supporting documentation on the merits and is, therefore, unable to determine

whether an evidentiary hearing is warranted. As such, discovery will provide no useful information for

the Court at this time. 

Based on the foregoing, Petitioner’s motion for discovery is DENIED. However, petitioner may

renew his motion if he can show good cause to discover the request reports.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 30, 2005 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06254-OWW -DLB Document 30 Filed 08/31/05 Page 2 of 2