Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00525/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00525-4/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

JASON SAUNDERS,

Petitioner, No. 1:07-CV-00525 ALA HC

vs.

JEREMY GARRISON, et al.,

Respondents. ORDER

 /

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner challenges the loss of one hundred and fifty days of

credit towards his sentence. On September 17, 2007, Respondents filed an answer in which they

alleged that Petitioner has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. On October 1, 2007,

Petitioner filed a motion for leave to conduct discovery and a motion for an extension of time to

file a traverse. Therein, Petitioner requested production of the Pleasant Valley State Prison’s

Housing Unit D-4 Administrative Segregation Entrance Log for the date of June 9, 2006, and

production of the CDCR 114A Inmate Segregation Records for the date of June 9, 2006. 

Petitioner argues that the requested discovery is relevant to Respondent’s claim that

Petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. On November 26, 2007, Respondents

filed an opposition to Petitioner’s motion for leave to conduct discovery, arguing that Petitioner

has not shown good cause in support of his request for discovery. 

 Rule 6 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts

Case 1:07-cv-00525-ALA Document 22 Filed 11/27/07 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

permits discovery in habeas corpus actions. A habeas petitioner does not enjoy the presumptive

entitlement to discovery of a traditional civil litigant and discovery is available only in the

discretion of the court and for good cause shown. See Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases,

Rule 6(a) 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254; Rich v. Calderon, 187 F.3d 1064, 1068 (9th Cir. 1999). See

also Hayes v. Woodford, 301 F.3d 1054, 1065 n.6 (9th Cir.2002) (discovery is available "only in

the discretion of the court and for good cause"). 

After a review of the record and Petitioner’s claims, the court finds good cause for an

order granting the discovery Petitioner seeks. The court concludes that the requested

information is relevant to the claims contained in the instant petition and is necessary to a fair

resolution of those claims. 

GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. Petitioner’s motion for leave to conduct discovery is granted; 

2. Petitioner’s motion for an extension of time to file his traverse is granted; and

3. Petitioner shall file his traverse within sixty-three (63) days of the date of this

order. 

/////

DATED: November 27, 2007

/s/ Arthur L. Alarcón 

 UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE

Sitting by Designation

Case 1:07-cv-00525-ALA Document 22 Filed 11/27/07 Page 2 of 2