Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01304/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01304-10/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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JIMMY MAGEE, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

KATHY MENDOZA-POWERS, )

)

Respondent. )

____________________________________)

1:06-CV-01304 AWI NEW (DLB) HC 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR TIME IN

PRISON LIBRARY

[Doc. #34]

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL

DISCOVERY

[Doc. #35]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On July 16, 2007, Petitioner filed a motion requesting an order granting Petitioner adequate

time and access to the prison law library. Petitioner’s motion will be denied because such an order

would serve no purpose. Briefing has concluded in this case and it is pending a decision on the

merits.

On July 18, 2007, Petitioner filed a motion to compel discovery of certain medical records of

a prosecution witness that was reviewed by the trial court during an in limine motion. “The writ of

habeas corpus is not a proceeding in the original criminal prosecution but an independent civil suit.”

Riddle v. Dyche, 262 U.S. 333, 335-336, 43 S.Ct. 555, 555 (1923); See, e.g. Keeney v. TamayoReyes, 504 U.S. 1, 14, 112 S.Ct. 1715, 1722 (1992) (O’Connor, J., dissenting). However, modern

Case 1:06-cv-01304-AWI-GSA Document 42 Filed 08/20/07 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 2

habeas corpus procedure has the same function as an ordinary appeal. Anderson v. Butler, 886 F.2d

111, 113 (5 Cir. 1989); O’Neal v. McAnnich, 513 U.S. 440, 442, 115 S.Ct. 992 (1995) (federal th

court’s function in habeas corpus proceedings is to “review errors in state criminal trials”(emphasis

omitted)). A habeas proceeding does not proceed to “trial” and unlike other civil litigation, a habeas

corpus petitioner is not entitled to broad discovery. Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899, 117 S.Ct. 1793,

1796-97 (1997); Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286, 295, 89 S.Ct. 1082, 1088-89 (1969). Although

discovery is available pursuant to Rule 6, it is only granted at the Court’s discretion, and upon a

showing of good cause. Bracy, 117 S.Ct. 1793, 1797; 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. 

Petitioner does not demonstrate good cause why his request for discovery should be granted.

Petitioner does not state why the information is needed or why said discovery is relevant to a

determination of the merits of the petition. Further, the requested discovery does not relate to any of

the claims presented in the petition. Accordingly, Petitioner's request for discovery will be denied.

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1) Petitioner’s motion for time in the law library is DENIED; and

2) Petitioner’s motion to compel discovery is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 20, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01304-AWI-GSA Document 42 Filed 08/20/07 Page 2 of 2