Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_00-cv-00118/USCOURTS-azd-2_00-cv-00118-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 535
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Death Penalty
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Ptn for Writ of H/C - Stay of Execution

---

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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Richard Dean Hurles, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents. 

No. CV-00-118-PHX-DLR

DEATH PENALTY CASE 

ORDER 

 This matter, remanded from the Ninth Circuit, is set for an evidentiary hearing on 

Petitioner’s judicial bias claim. Before the Court is Petitioner’s motion to compel 

disclosure. (Doc. 161.) He seeks the following information: 1) a list of special actions 

filed after January 1, 1990, in which the office of the Arizona Attorney General 

represented a judge or the court named as the petitioner or respondent, and 2) a list of 

special actions in which Colleen French, while employed as an Assistant Attorney 

General, represented a party in a special action. (Id.) Respondents oppose the motion. 

(Doc. 164.) 

DISCUSSION 

 A habeas petitioner is not entitled to discovery “as a matter of ordinary course.” 

Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899, 904 (1997); see Campbell v. Blodgett, 982 F.2d 1356, 

1358 (9th Cir. 1993). Rule 6 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides that: 

A judge may, for good cause, authorize a party to conduct discovery under 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and may limit the extent of discovery. 

Case 2:00-cv-00118-DLR Document 170 Filed 01/04/16 Page 1 of 3
- 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 

. . . A party requesting discovery must provide reasons for the request. The 

request must also include any proposed interrogatories and requests for 

admission, and must specify any requested documents. 

Rule 6(a) and (b), Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254 (emphasis 

added). 

 Whether a petitioner has established “good cause” for discovery under Rule 6(a) 

requires a court to determine the essential elements of the petitioner’s substantive claim 

and evaluate whether “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, 520 U.S. at 908–09 (quoting Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286, 

300 (1969)). 

 In remanding the case, the Ninth Circuit directed this Court to determine “whether 

the probability that Judge Hilliard harbored actual [bias] against Hurles is too high to be 

constitutionally tolerable.” Hurles v. Ryan, 752 F.3d 768, 792 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting 

Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899, 904 (1997). To make the determination, the Court must 

ask “whether the average judge, in Judge Hilliard’s position, was likely to sit as a neutral, 

unbiased arbiter or whether there existed an unconstitutional risk of bias.” Id. The Ninth 

Circuit explained that impermissible bias could be shown by “proof that Judge Hilliard 

participated in the special action proceedings as more than a nominal party, had contact 

with French, commissioned or authorized the responsive pleading or provided any input 

on the brief” or became “embroiled in a running, bitter controversy” with Petitioner or 

counsel. Id. 

 The Court agrees with Respondents that the interview statements made by 

Commissioner French, which form the basis for Petitioner’s request for disclosure, do not 

suggest that it was unusual for the Attorney General’s Office to respond to a special 

action on behalf of a judge or court. French was asked “how many special actions you 

think you were involved in?” (Doc. 161-1.) She answered, “I can think of one other one.” 

(Id.) Even assuming there is some relevance to the frequency of these special actions, the 

fact that Commissioner French had been involved in two special actions says nothing 

Case 2:00-cv-00118-DLR Document 170 Filed 01/04/16 Page 2 of 3
- 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 

27 

28 

about the rarity of cases such as Petitioner’s. 

 In addition, as Respondents note, information about unrelated special actions 

where the Attorney General’s Office represented a court or a judge are irrelevant to a 

determination of whether Judge Hilliard in fact was personally involved in Petitioner’s 

special action. Even assuming, as Petitioner speculates, that the rarity of such cases might 

suggest a higher level of participation on Judge Hilliard’s part, such information is not 

relevant to the issue of Judge Hilliard’s actual level of participation, which can only be 

established by the testimony of Commissioner French and Judge Hilliard herself. 

Information about other special actions will not answer the question posed by the Ninth 

Circuit on remand: whether Judge Hilliard participated in the special action as more than 

a nominal party, had contact with French, or commissioned, authorized, or provided input 

on the responsive brief. Hurles, 752 F.3d at 792. 

 For these reasons, Petitioner has not shown “good cause” for the requested 

disclosure. 

 Accordingly, 

 IT IS ORDERED denying Petitioner’s motion to compel disclosure (Doc. 161). 

 Dated this 4th day of January, 2016. 

Douglas L. Rayes 

United States District Judge

Case 2:00-cv-00118-DLR Document 170 Filed 01/04/16 Page 3 of 3