Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06409/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06409-8/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MONROE WALTER BURNS, CASE NO. CV-F-04-6409 OWW DLB HC

Petitioner, ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S 

REQUEST FOR COPY OF TRANSCRIPTS,

vs. WITHOUT PREJUDICE

A.P. KANE, Warden, [Doc. 35]

Respondent.

 /

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

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

Now pending before the Court is Petitioner’s motion for a copy of the preliminary transcripts in

his 1991 San Mateo County conviction. Respondent filed an opposition on March 9, 2006, arguing that

the transcripts are not relevant to any of Petitioner’s claims. Petitioner filed a reply on March 27, 2006.

Petitioner presently requests that the Court order a transcript of the preliminary hearing in that case

pursuant to Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 cases, in order to demonstrate that the trial court

used both prior convictions to illicitly and unethically enhance the petitioner’s present conviction under

California’s ‘THREE STRIKE’ legislation. . . .” (Motion, at 3 ¶ 8.) 

Because the Court has yet to review the merits of the instant petition, the Court cannot determine

at this juncture whether a copy of the transcript from Petitioner’s 1991 prior convictions is necessary for

Case 1:04-cv-06409-LJO -DLB Document 41 Filed 04/07/06 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

 Petitioner is advised that the Court’s docket of pending cases is substantial, and the Court must act first on those

1

matters that have been pending the longest. 

2

resolution of any of the claims raised in the instant petition. Therefore, Petitioner’s request is DENIED, 1

without prejudice. Following a thorough review of the instant petition, should the Court feel that a copy

of the transcripts from Petitioner’s 1991 conviction is necessary, the Court will issue such an order at

that time. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 6, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06409-LJO -DLB Document 41 Filed 04/07/06 Page 2 of 2