Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-00975/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-00975-0/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

Order Denying Petitioner’s Motions for Summary Judgment and for Discovery; Denying Request for Evidentiary

Hearing

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.05\Zamgola975misc 1

 **Original filed 8/8/06**

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROGER ZAMGOLA,

Petitioner,

 vs.

ROSANNE CAMPBELL, Warden,

Respondent.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 05-0975 JF (PR)

ORDER DENYING

PETITIONER’S MOTIONS FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND

FOR DISCOVERY; DENYING

REQUEST FOR EVIDENTIARY

HEARING

(Docket Nos. 24, 25, 28)

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On July 12, 2005, the Court granted Petitioner’s

motion to proceed in forma pauperis, dismissed one of Petitioner’s claims and ordered

Respondent to show cause why the petition should not be granted as to the remaining

claims. Respondent filed an answer addressing the merits of the petition on September

27, 2005. On October 27, 2005, Petitioner filed a traverse and memorandum supporting

his traverse, a motion for summary judgment, a motion for discovery, and a request for an

evidentiary hearing. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will DENY Petitioner’s

motions (docket nos. 24, 25, 28) without prejudice. 

Case 5:05-cv-00975-JF Document 29 Filed 08/08/06 Page 1 of 5
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

Order Denying Petitioner’s Motions for Summary Judgment and for Discovery; Denying Request for Evidentiary

Hearing

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.05\Zamgola975misc 2

DISCUSSION

A. Motion for Summary Judgment

Petitioner has filed a motion for summary judgment Summary judgment is proper

where the pleadings, discovery and affidavits show that there is “no genuine issue as to

any material fact and [that] the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Material facts are those which may affect the outcome of the case. 

See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A dispute as to a

material fact is genuine if there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to return a

verdict for the nonmoving party. See id. The Court has yet to review the merits of the

instant petition, therefore Petitioner’s motion for summary judgment is premature. 

Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion (docket no. 24) is DENIED without prejudice. The

Court will reconsider the motion upon review of the merits of the instant petition. 

B. Motion for Discovery

Petitioner filed a motion for discovery. In his motion, Petitioner requests that the

Court issue an order for formal discovery of all relevant documents to be served upon

Petitioner. See Pet.’s Mot. at 1. A habeas petitioner, unlike the usual civil litigant in

federal court, is not entitled to discovery as a matter of ordinary course. Bracy v.

Gramley, 520 U.S. 899, 904 (1997). However, Rule 6(a) of the Federal Rules Governing

Section 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254, 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.” Before deciding whether a petitioner is entitled

to discovery under Rule 6(a) the court must first identify the essential elements of the

underlying claim. Bracy, 520 U.S. at 904 (difficulties of proof aside, petitioner’s

allegation of judicial bias, if proved, would violate due process clause). The court must

then determine whether the petitioner has shown “good cause” for appropriate discovery

to prove his claim. See id. Good cause for discovery under Rule 6(a) is shown “‘where

Case 5:05-cv-00975-JF Document 29 Filed 08/08/06 Page 2 of 5
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

Order Denying Petitioner’s Motions for Summary Judgment and for Discovery; Denying Request for Evidentiary

Hearing

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.05\Zamgola975misc 3

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 . . .’” Id.

at 908-09 (quoting Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286, 299 (1969)). 

The instant petition is now submitted and before the Court for review. In its Order

to Show Cause, the Court ordered Respondent to filed with the answer, and serve on

Petitioner, a copy of all portions of the state trial record that have been transcribed

previously, and that are relevant to a determination of the issues presented by the petition. 

See July 12, 2005 Order (docket no. 4) at 6. Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion for general

discovery is vague and fails to establish good cause. Petitioner’s claims do not appear to

rely upon extra-record evidence and a factual basis exists in the record to determine the

claims. Upon review of the merits of the petition, if the Court determines that further

discovery is required the Court will notify the parties. Petitioner’s motion for discovery

(docket no. 25 ) is DENIED without prejudice. 

C. Request for Evidentiary Hearing 

 Petitioner filed a request for evidentiary hearing to determine the facts in the 

instant petition. An evidentiary hearing is held in federal habeas cases only under the

most limited circumstances. See Baja v. Ducharme, 187 F.3d 1075, 1077-79 (9th Cir.

1999). An evidentiary hearing on a claim for which the petitioner failed to develop a

factual basis in state court can be held only if petitioner shows that: (1) the claim relies

either on (a) a new rule of constitutional law that the Supreme Court has made retroactive

to cases on collateral review, or (b) a factual predicate that could not have been

previously discovered through the exercise of due diligence, and (2) the facts underlying

the claim would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that but for

constitutional error, no reasonable fact finder would have found the applicant guilty of the

underlying offense. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2). In short, if he did not present in state

court the facts he wishes to present now, for instance by developing them in the

underlying criminal or state habeas proceedings, he cannot do so now unless he can bring

Case 5:05-cv-00975-JF Document 29 Filed 08/08/06 Page 3 of 5
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

Order Denying Petitioner’s Motions for Summary Judgment and for Discovery; Denying Request for Evidentiary

Hearing

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.05\Zamgola975misc 4

himself within the provisions of section 2254(e)(2) outlined above. 

Petitioner has failed to establish any facts that he wishes the Court to consider

could not have been discovered and presented to the state courts in the exercise of due

diligence. See Baja, 187 F.3d at 1078-79. The Court concludes that Petitioner has not

shown that the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2) apply in the instant case. The Court

will review the underlying record and the pleadings when considering the merits of the

petition. Petitioner’s request for an evidentiary hearing (docket no. 28) is DENIED

without prejudice. 

 CONCLUSION 

 Petitioner’s motion for summary judgment and motion for discovery (docket nos. 

24, 25) are DENIED without prejudice. Petitioner’s request for an evidentiary hearing

(docket no. 28) is DENIED without prejudice. The Court will review the merits of the

petition in a separate written order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 8/8/06 /s/ 

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:05-cv-00975-JF Document 29 Filed 08/08/06 Page 4 of 5
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

Order Denying Petitioner’s Motions for Summary Judgment and for Discovery; Denying Request for Evidentiary

Hearing

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.05\Zamgola975misc 5

A copy of this order was mailed to the following:

Roger Zamgola

T-22174

Mule Creek State Prison

P.O. Box 409099

Ione, CA 95640

Juliet B. Hayley

CA State Attorney General’s Office

455 Golden Gate Avenue

Suite 11000

San Francisco, CA 94102-7004

Case 5:05-cv-00975-JF Document 29 Filed 08/08/06 Page 5 of 5