Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00190/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00190-5/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM CECIL THORNTON,

Petitioner,

v.

MICHAEL STRAINER, Warden,

Respondent. 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 11-cv-190-LAB(JMA)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

COMPEL DISCOVERY [DOC. NO. 34]

On January 27, 2011, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. [Doc. No. 1, Petition]. Thereafter he filed a Motion to

Compel Discovery, which is opposed by Respondent. [Doc. Nos. 34, Motion to Compel

Discovery & 40, Respondent’s Response to Motion to Compel Discovery]. The Court

has considered and denies Petitioner’s motion to compel for the reasons stated below.

The Petition that is the subject of this action contains claims for federal habeas

relief based on the denial of a Certificate of Rehabilitation Petitioner filed with the

Superior Court of California, County of San Diego. Petition, p. 4. On November 4,

2011, he says he reviewed his central inmate file, but was only permitted to make

copies of 15 pages because the file was too large. He now seeks to obtain a copy of

the entire file. He offers no explanation as to why his request for discovery is

appropriate in this case. 

Case 3:11-cv-00190-LAB-JMA Document 57 Filed 08/06/12 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

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

to discovery as a matter of course.” Bracy v. Bramley, 520 U.S. 899, 904 (1997). In

order to be entitled to discovery, a petitioner must make specific factual allegations that

demonstrate good reason to believe the petitioner may, through discovery, be able to

garner sufficient evidence to entitle him to relief. See Id. at 908-09. Pursuant to Rule

6(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the Court may allow a party who

demonstrates good cause to conduct discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. 

Petitioner has not demonstrated good cause to conduct the discovery he seeks. 

The claims presented in his Petition are based on matters contained in the records of

the California courts, which have been lodged with this Court in connection with this

action. His central inmate file does not have any apparent relation to these claims. 

Petitioner has not identified any documents contained in the central inmate file that are

relevant, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b), to his claims that his

constitutional rights were violated when his application to San Diego County Superior

Court for a Certificate of Rehabilitation was denied. Furthermore, even if Petitioner

were permitted to conduct this discovery, it is unlikely any evidence obtained from

Petitioner’s central inmate file would be appropriate for consideration by the Court, as a

federal habeas court can only consider evidence which was actually presented to the

state courts. 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1) & (d)(2); Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. __, 131

S.Ct. 1388 (2011).

Petitioner’s motion to compel is, therefore, DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 6, 2012

Jan M. Adler

U.S. Magistrate Judge

2

Case 3:11-cv-00190-LAB-JMA Document 57 Filed 08/06/12 Page 2 of 2