Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00697/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00697-2/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

18cv697-WQH (BLM)

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KENYATTA QUINN MITCHELL,

Petitioner,

v.

DANIEL PARAMO, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No.: 18cv697-WQH (BLM)

ORDER RE PETITIONER’S REQUEST TO 

PRODUCE STATE RECORDS 

[ECF No. 17]; 

ORDER RE PETITIONER’S OBJECTION 

TO RESPONDENT’S REQUEST FOR 

STATE RECORDS [ECF No. 15]

On June 22, 2018, Petitioner filed nunc pro tunc a motion with the Court requesting that 

the Court order Respondent to produce state records. ECF No. 17. Petitioner states in relevant 

part: 

On September 26, 2016 in Dept. 5 the plaintiff went before the court during a prepreliminary hearing. The recordings with the defendant were off the record,

however what happened during those proceedings should be contained in a minute 

order. This record specifically applys [sic] to the petitioner’s writ of habeas corpus 

claims. . . . This minute-order was not provided in the appellate transcripts. . . .In 

addition I also want to ask the Court to order the Office of Assigned Counsel to 

provide the petitioner with duplicates of the original subpoenas issued prior to the 

Preliminary. This is also part of the petitioner’s argument that his Due Process 

was violated. This order is needed to ensure effective discovery by the Court. 

Case 3:18-cv-00697-WQH-BLM Document 19 Filed 06/28/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

18cv697-WQH (BLM)

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

Id. at 2. 

The Court construes Petitioner’s Request to Produce State Records as an ex parte motion 

for discovery. For the following reasons, the Court finds that Petitioner’s motion for discovery is 

premature. On April 24, 2018, the Court set a briefing schedule. ECF No. 5. Pursuant to the 

briefing schedule, “[i]f Respondent contends the Petition can be decided without the Court’s 

reaching the merits of Petitioner’s claims,” Respondent may file a motion to dismiss no later 

than July 2, 2018. Id. at ¶ 3. “If Respondent does not contend that the Petition can be decided 

without the Court reaching the merits of Petitioner’s claims, Respondent shall file and serve an 

answer to the Petition” no later than July 2, 2018. Id. at ¶ 6. Given this timetable, Respondent 

has not yet filed a motion to dismiss or answer, nor was she required to have done so. 

If Respondent chooses to file a motion to dismiss, the Petition may be decided without 

the Court reaching the merits of Petitioner’s claims. Therefore, Petitioner’s request for discovery 

to support the merits of his claims may be moot. On the other hand, if Respondent chooses to 

file an answer, Petitioner’s request for the state records will likely be addressed without the need 

for court-ordered discovery. Rule 5 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases provides that the 

“answer must address the allegations in the petition.” Rule 5(b), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. In 

addition, “[t]he answer must also indicate what transcripts (of pretrial, trial, sentencing, or postconviction 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.” Rule 5(c), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. If additional 

parts of the transcript are necessary to fully develop the record, “[t]he judge may order that the 

respondent furnish other parts of existing transcripts. . . .” Id.

Given the foregoing, although the requested state court records may support Petitioner’s 

claims, the Court finds that Petitioner’s motion is premature. The Court therefore DENIES the 

motion, without prejudice to Petitioner bringing another motion after Respondent files a 

response to the Petition, if Petitioner believes the facts underlying his claims are not fully 

developed before the Court. 

On June 21, 2018, Petitioner also filed an Objection to Respondent’s Request for State 

Case 3:18-cv-00697-WQH-BLM Document 19 Filed 06/28/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

18cv697-WQH (BLM)

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

Records. ECF No. 15. Petitioner states that Respondent’s Request for Order to Produce State 

Records [ECF No. 10] “is frivolous, since these records were already reviewed by the court.” ECF 

No. 15 at 1. On June 14, 2018, this Court ruled on Respondent’s Request for State Records. ECF 

No. 11. Accordingly, Petitioner’s Objection is DENIED AS MOOT. 

The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to provide Petitioner with one copy of the 

docket sheet showing proceedings to date. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 6/28/2018

Case 3:18-cv-00697-WQH-BLM Document 19 Filed 06/28/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3