Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01037/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01037-3/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEOVARDO SALCEDA,

Petitioner,

v.

JOHN F. SALAZAR, WARDEN,

Respondent.

Case No. 08cv1037 IEG (PCL)

ORDER DENYING MOTION

FOR DISCOVERY 

(Doc. No. 20)

MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO CONDUCT DISCOVERY 

Petitioner has filed a motion seeking leave of court to conduct discovery of court records

and legal files and to propound interrogatories and requests for admission to all counsel involved

in Petitioner’s 1989, 1993 and 1995 convictions. (Doc. No. 20, 8-15.) Specifically, Petitioner

seeks to support his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel by showing his first appointed

trial counsel erroneously declared a conflict of interest during the representation of Petitioner. 

Petitioner also seeks to support his claim of actual innocence by showing that exculpatory

statements were made to the prosecutor in Petitioner’s robbery trial and that the prosecutor failed

to disclose such statements to Petitioner’s trial counsel. 

A habeas petitioner, unlike the usual civil litigant in federal court, is not entitled to

discovery as a matter of ordinary course. See Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899, 904 (1997). 

Rather, Rule 6(a) of the Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases Under Section 2254 provides: a

“party shall be entitled to invoke the processes of discovery available under the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure if, and to the extent that, the judge in the exercise of his discretion and for good

Case 3:08-cv-01037-IEG-PCL Document 47 Filed 08/14/09 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

08 CV 1037 IEG (PCL)

2

 cause shown grants leave to do so, but not otherwise.” Before deciding whether a petitioner is

entitled to discovery under Rule 6(a), the district court must first identify the essential elements

of the underlying claim, and must then determine whether the petitioner has shown “good cause”

for appropriate discovery to prove his claim. See Bracy, 520 U.S. at 904. Good cause for

discovery under Rule 6(a) is shown “where specific allegations before the court show reason to

believe that the petitioner may, if the facts are fully developed, be able to demonstrate that he is .

. . entitled to relief . . . .” Id. at 908-09 (quotation and citation omitted). A request for discovery

in a habeas case will not be granted unless it is supported by specific factual detail. See Rich v.

Calderon, 187 F.3d 1064, 1067 (9th Cir. 1999); see also Aubut v. State of Maine, 431 F.2d 688,

689 (1st Cir. 1970). 

Petitioner requests written discovery be propounded to Ronald K. Vanesian, appointed

public defender; Daniel J. Mangarin, alternate appointed defense counsel; and Michael Groch,

prosecutor in this case. Petitioner has also requested 14 items of discovery. (Doc. No. 20, 14-

15.) The Court finds, at this juncture of the proceedings, good cause does not exist to allow

petitioner the requested discovery. Petitioner seeks the requested discovery items to bolster his

claim that his court-appointed counsel for the 1995 trial mistakenly declared a conflict of interest

and his alternate appointed trial counsel was ineffective for failure to investigate a prior

conviction. (Doc. No. 20, 16.) However, Petitioner’s proposed Interrogatories and Requests for

Admissions seek to establish information that is already present in the court records and trial

transcripts customarily lodged in habeas proceedings. Petitioner must present evidence that is

more than speculative in order to warrant a leave of court to conduct discovery in habeas

proceedings. Rich v. Calderon, 187 F.3d at 1067. Here, Petitioner claims he knows the basis

for counsel’s declaration of a conflict of interest but counsel never communicated any reason to

the trial court. (Doc. No. 1 Pet. at 12.) Counsel’s perceived conflict may have been based on

reasons outside of Petitioner’s knowledge and outside of the court records and as counsel was

not required to disclose a reason for withdrawl, there is no evidence that the actual reason for

Mr. Vanesian’s conflict will surface. 

More importantly, to the extent the Petitioner is requesting trial transcripts and court

Case 3:08-cv-01037-IEG-PCL Document 47 Filed 08/14/09 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

1. The Court only analyzes Petitioner’s requests for materials subject to discovery; i.e.

documents and items that would be available to him in the normal course of litigation and not

subject to any privilege or other such protection. 

08 CV 1037 IEG (PCL)

3

records, Petitioner has offered no argument to show that he will not have a sufficient record to

consider following appropriate lodgments in this matter or that he does not already have the

documents he requests within his own records. Petitioner attests he has already acquired

voluminous records in this case. (Doc. No. 20, 6; doc. No. 1, 5.) It appears Petitioner already

has most, if not all, information available to him1/

 requested in this Motion. Lastly, in the

Report and Recommendation filed by this Court concurrently with this Order, the Court has

recommended Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be dismissed for failure to comply

with the AEDPA’s statute of limitations requirement. As such, any discovery in this case would

be moot. 

Accordingly, Petitioner has failed to demonstrate good cause and his request for leave to

conduct discovery is DENIED.

DATE: August 13, 2009 

Peter C. Lewis

U.S. Magistrate Judge

United States District Court

cc: The Honorable Irma E. Gonzalez

All Parties and Counsel of Record

Case 3:08-cv-01037-IEG-PCL Document 47 Filed 08/14/09 Page 3 of 3