Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00934/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00934-6/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

SHAWN WALKER,

Petitioner,

v.

C.M. HARRISON, WARDEN,

Respondent.

 /

CV F 05-00934 OWW SMS HC

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION

FOR DISCOVERY 

[Doc. 18]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On December 30, 2005, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the instant petition as timebarred. Petitioner did not file an opposition to Respondent’s motion. On February 28, 2006, the

undersigned issued Findings and Recommendations recommending that Respondent’s motion to

dismiss the instant petition as time-barred be granted. 

On May 1, 2006, Petitioner filed a motion for discovery. (Court Doc. 18.) Petitioner

requests the mail log from March 2002 to August 3, 2004. Petitioner indicates that the California

Supreme Court date stamped his petition fore review on July 7, 2004, and Petitioner believes that

he filed another petition in June 2003. Petitioner states that he was having “black outs” during

this time period. Petitioner further requests memorandums regarding the law library access from

December 2002 to April 2004, various other documents related to the law library access, and all

medical records from January 1, 2003 to June 3, 2004. 

Case 1:05-cv-00934-OWW -SMS Document 19 Filed 06/08/06 Page 1 of 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

1

 As stated in the Findings and Recommendations, in Evans v. Chavis, __ U.S. __, 126 S.Ct. 846, 854

(2006), the Supreme Court found an unexplained delay of six months to be presumptively unreasonable under

California law. The Supreme Court stated, “Six months is far longer than the ‘short period[s] of time,’ 30 to 60 days,

that most States provide for filing an appeal to the state supreme court. Id., quoting Saffold, 536 U.S. at 219. 

2

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. The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 6 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases

emphasize that Rule 6 was not intended to extend to habeas corpus petitioners, as a matter of

right, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure’s broad discovery provisions. Rule 6, Advisory

Committee Notes (quoting Harris, 394 U.S. at295, 89 S.Ct. at 1089). 

The instant discovery request must be denied as Petitioner has failed to demonstrate good

cause. As stated in the Findings and Recommendations, the second petition filed in the Fifth

District Court of Appeals was denied on March 7, 2002, and Petitioner waited twenty-nine

months, until August 3, 2004, to file his third petition to the California Supreme Court. The fact

that Petitioner may have filed something in the California Supreme Court in June, 2003, does not

save the instant petition from dismissal. Even assuming that were true, there still remains an

unexplained delay of 15 months before Petitioner filed his third petition to the California

Supreme Court, of which Petitioner is not entitled to interval tolling.1 

To the extent Petitioner requests medical documents that are in his central file, he may 

request those documents himself. Petitioner’s other requests for various documents relating to

the law library access are vague and conclusory, as to the relevant time frame and content. 

Therefore, Petitioner has failed to demonstrate good cause warranting a discovery order in this

case. Accordingly, Petitioner’s request is denied. 

In the interest of justice, the Court will grant Petitioner thirty (30) days within which to

file objections to the Findings and Recommendations. After the thirty day time frame expires,

Case 1:05-cv-00934-OWW -SMS Document 19 Filed 06/08/06 Page 2 of 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

3

the Court will proceed to submit the Findings and Recommendations to the District Judge for

resolution. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 8, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00934-OWW -SMS Document 19 Filed 06/08/06 Page 3 of 3