Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00523/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00523-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

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. District Court

 E. D. California cd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE SALVADOR RIVERA AVILA, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

CHARLES DEROSA, et al., )

)

Respondents. )

____________________________________)

1:07-CV-00523 AWI NEW (DLB) HC 

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

MOTION FOR DISCOVERY

[Doc. #6]

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

REQUEST TO SERVE SUMMONS ON

RESPONDENT

[Doc. #5]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

On April 17, 2007, Petitioner filed a request with the Court that he be allowed to serve a

summons on Respondent. On May 4, 2007, Petitioner filed a motion requesting leave to conduct

discovery. 

Petitioner’s motions will be denied. “The writ of habeas corpus is not a proceeding in the

original criminal prosecution but an independent civil suit.” Riddle v. Dyche, 262 U.S. 333, 335-336,

43 S.Ct. 555, 555 (1923); See, e.g. Keeney v. Tamayo-Reyes, 504 U.S. 1, 14, 112 S.Ct. 1715, 1722

(1992) (O’Connor, J., dissenting). However, modern habeas corpus procedure has the same function

as an ordinary appeal. Anderson v. Butler, 886 F.2d 111, 113 (5 Cir. 1989); O’Neal v. McAnnich, th

513 U.S. 440, 442, 115 S.Ct. 992 (1995) (federal court’s function in habeas corpus proceedings is to

Case 1:07-cv-00523-AWI-GSA Document 8 Filed 05/10/07 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 2

“review errors in state criminal trials”(emphasis omitted)). A habeas proceeding does not proceed to

“trial” and 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. 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. 

Petitioner does not demonstrate good cause why his request for discovery should be granted.

Petitioner does not state what information is needed, why the information is needed, for what claims

or arguments said discovery is necessary, or why said discovery is relevant to a determination of the

merits of the petition. Accordingly, Petitioner's request for discovery is DENIED.

With respect to Petitioner’s motion to serve a summons on Respondent, Petitioner’s motion

will be denied. As discussed above, Petitioner is advised that petitions for writ of habeas corpus are

processed differently from other civil cases. A summons is not issued; rather, upon a preliminary

review of the petition, the Court will order Respondent to respond to the petition after which

Petitioner will be granted an opportunity to traverse the response. See Rules Governing Habeas

Corpus Cases. 

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1) Petitioner’s motion for discovery is DENIED; and

2) Petitioner’s request to serve summons on Respondent is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 9, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00523-AWI-GSA Document 8 Filed 05/10/07 Page 2 of 2