Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06541/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06541-2/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

People v. Marsden, 2 Cal.3d 118 (1970).

U.S . District Court

 E. D . California cd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN ANDREW JUAREZ, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

JEANNE WOODFORD, Director, )

)

Respondent. )

____________________________________)

CV F 04 6541 OWW LJO HC 

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

[Doc. #30]

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

MOTION FOR RELIEF PURSUANT TO

F.R.C.P. RULE 60(b)

[Doc. #31]

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 5, 2005, Petitioner filed a motion seeking an order from the Court to compel

discovery. On July 15, 2005, Petitioner filed a motion for relief pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure. 

I. Motion to Compel Discovery 

Petitioner now brings a second motion to compel discovery. Petitioner seeks the production

of certain state court transcripts relating to a Marsden1 motion and motion for new trial. He states

Respondent did not provide these transcripts pursuant to the Court’s order of January 7, 2005. 

Case 1:04-cv-06541-OWW -LJO Document 33 Filed 08/26/05 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

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. Here, Petitioner has not

demonstrated good cause for his motion to compel discovery. The transcripts Petitioner refers to

were produced and lodged with the Court on June 21, 2005. Accordingly, Petitioner's motion for

discovery is DENIED as moot.

II. Motion for Relief

Petitioner has also filed a motion for relief pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

§ 60(b).

Pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 

the court may relieve a party or a party’s legal representative from a final judgment, 

order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or

excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not 

have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud 

(whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other 

misconduct of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been 

satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been

reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should 

have prospective application; or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the 

operation of the judgment.

Petitioner requests that this Court relieve Petitioner from an order issued by the Superior

Court during trial. Petitioner’s motion is improper. Rule 60(b) is applicable only to final judgments

and orders issued by this Court, not to judgments and orders issued by another court. Moreover, the

relief Petitioner seeks, which is federal review of the state court’s decision, is precisely the purpose

of this habeas action. Essentially, Petitioner seeks to circumvent the entire habeas review process

with this motion. Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion for relief is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 25, 2005 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06541-OWW -LJO Document 33 Filed 08/26/05 Page 2 of 2