Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00943/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00943-2/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DEVIN OTTE,

Petitioner,

v.

KATHY MENDOZA-POWERS,

Respondent.

 /

CV F 06-00943 OWW SMS HC

ORDER DIRECTING RESPONDENT TO

SUBMIT RESPONSE TO PETITIONER’S

MOTION

[Doc. 11]

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner is represented by Joseph Camarata, Esq. 

Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s January 31, 2007, motion for discovery. 

Petitioner requests discovery of “[a]ll statistical documents, and/or all parole decision summary

sheets, of all initial parole consideration hearings, conducted for all indeterminately-sentenced

prisoners for the past five (5) years.” Motion, at 1. Respondent has not filed a response to

Petitioner’s motion.

Discovery is available at the Court’s discretion and upon a showing of good cause. 

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

Cases. However, unlike other civil litigation, a habeas corpus petitioner is not entitled to broad

discovery. Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899, 904 (1997); Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286, 295

(1969). 

Case 1:06-cv-00943-OWW -SMS Document 12 Filed 05/18/07 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

1

 The Court notes for the record and takes judicial notice of case number 1:06-CV-00873 OWW NEW

(DLB) HC, wherein the same motion for discovery was filed and granted based on Respondent’s compliance with

Petitioner’s request. (06-CV-00873 OWW NEW (DLB) HC, Court Doc. 19.) This Court “may take notice of

proceedings in other courts, both within and without the federal judicial system, if those proceedings have a direct

relation to matters at issue.” U.S. ex rel. Robinson Rancheria Citizens Council v. Borneo, Inc., 971 F.2d 244 (9th

Cir.1992); see also MGIC Indem. Co. v. Weisman, 803 F.2d 500, 505 (9 Cir. 1986); United States v. Wilson, 631 th

F.2d 118, 119 (9 cir. 1980). The Court presumes Respondent will respond likewise in the instant case. 

th

2

The Court finds that a response by Respondent is necessary to resolve the instant motion.1

Accordingly, within twenty (20) days from the date of service of this order, Respondent shall file

a response to Petitioner’s motion. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 17, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00943-OWW -SMS Document 12 Filed 05/18/07 Page 2 of 2