Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_03-cv-03668/USCOURTS-cand-4_03-cv-03668-6/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)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

NOT FOR CITATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID WESLEY HAWKINS,

Petitioner, No. C 03-3668 PJH

v.

BRIEFING ORDER RE: PETITIONER’S

THIRD REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY

JOHN CAVALLI, Chief, Santa Clara

County Probation Department

Respondent.

_______________________________/

 In his April 3, 2006 brief, petitioner Hawkins filed his third request for additional

discovery regarding claim five. Hawkins requests leave to depose Frank Berry, Michael

Boggess, Richard Clark, Diane Olsen, and Michael Volpi. 

Habeas Rule 6(a) provides that a "party shall be entitled to invoke the processes of

discovery available under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure if, and to the extent that, the

judge in the exercise of his discretion and for good cause shown grants leave to do so, but

not otherwise." Good cause for discovery under Rule 6(a) is shown “where specific

allegations before the court show reason to believe that the petitioner may, if the facts are

fully developed, be able to demonstrate that he is . . . entitled to relief . . .” Pham v.

Terhune, 400 F.3d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286, 299

(1969)). The Ninth Circuit has also described this standard as being that discovery must be

allowed when it is “essential” for the petitioner to “develop fully” his or her underlying claim. 

Id. (quoting Jones v. Wood, 114 F.3d 1002, 1009 (9th Cir. 1997)). Where the evidence

sought via a petitioner’s discovery request “may well contain favorable, material

Case 4:03-cv-03668-PJH Document 81 Filed 04/06/06 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

information,” the Ninth Circuit has held that it is “essential,” and that the district court is

required to grant the petitioner’s request pursuant to Rule 6(a). Id.

The State is ordered to respond to Hawkins’ latest request for discovery no later

than April 18, 2006. Hawkins may file a reply, if any, on the issue of the requested

discovery ONLY no later than April 25, 2006. There will be NO extensions of this briefing

schedule. Following briefing, the court will issue an order regarding Hawkins’ entitlement to

additional discovery under Habeas Rule 6(a).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 6, 2006 _____________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:03-cv-03668-PJH Document 81 Filed 04/06/06 Page 2 of 2