Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00334/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00334-4/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GEORGE FREDERICKS,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-05-0334 MCE KJM P

vs.

WARDEN M. KNOWLES, 

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner is a state prison inmate proceeding pro se with a petition for a writ of

habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He challenges his July 2003 denial of parole, arguing

that California Penal Code section 3041 creates a liberty interest in parole; that he has been

denied parole repeatedly even though there is no evidence he would pose an unreasonable threat

to public safety if released; that the Board of Prison Terms (BPT) has failed to set a base term

and so his term has become disproprotionate to the “uniform” term specified in the Penal Code;

that the BPT relies on the same factors for every denial; and there is a de facto “no parole”

policy in the state. Pet., Mem. P. & A. at 1.

In findings and recommendations filed February 23, 2006, this court denied those

portions of respondent’s motion to dismiss which challenged the existence of a liberty interest in

parole, but granted it insofar as petitioner alleged the BPT has failed to set a base term and thus

Case 2:05-cv-00334-MCE -KJM Document 23 Filed 11/21/06 Page 1 of 3
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

2

his term has become disproprotionate to the “uniform” term specified in California Penal Code

section 3041. The district court adopted these findings and recommendations on March 31,

2006.

Petitioner has filed a motion seeking leave of the court to conduct discovery. He

seeks memoranda written by deputy attorneys general that discuss changes in sentencing laws

and interpretations of the interaction between changes in the sentencing laws and life-term

sentences. Petitioner explains his need for these documents as: “These Memorandum hold one

of the keys to Petitioner’s beliefs in and about the term-to-life sentence to which he has become

subject.” Motion at 2. 

Respondent opposes the motion, arguing that these memoranda have no bearing

on whether the 2003 denial of parole was proper. 

A habeas petitioner is not entitled to discovery as a matter of course, but only

when 

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 . . . .

Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899, 909 (1997) (internal quotations and citations omitted); Rule

6(a), Rules Governing § 2254 Cases. Petitioner has not met this standard: internal memoranda

analyzing or interpreting changes in California’s sentencing laws have no bearing on whether

there was “sufficient evidence to support the[] finding that petitioner would pose an

unreasonable risk to society if released” or whether “the governor and the BPT have illegally

implemented a no parole policy,” or whether the denial of parole “even though all past board

recommendations were met violates petitioner’s . . . federal due process rights.” Pet. at 6. 

/////

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:05-cv-00334-MCE -KJM Document 23 Filed 11/21/06 Page 2 of 3
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

3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s September 12, 2006

motion for leave to conduct discovery is denied. 

DATED: November 21, 2006. 

2

fred0334.dsc

Case 2:05-cv-00334-MCE -KJM Document 23 Filed 11/21/06 Page 3 of 3