Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_03-cv-03668/USCOURTS-cand-4_03-cv-03668-7/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)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

NOT FOR CITATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID WESLEY HAWKINS,

Petitioner, No. C 03-3668 PJH

v.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART PETITIONER’S

THIRD REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY

JOHN CAVALLI, Chief, Santa Clara

County Probation Department

Respondent.

_______________________________/

On August 30, 2005, this court granted Hawkins’ request to conduct additional

discovery regarding claim five pursuant to Habeas Rule 6(a). On March 2, 2006, Hawkins

notified the court that the additional discovery had been completed. Pursuant to this court’s

orders, the parties submitted supplemental briefs re: claim five following the additional

discovery. Hawkins also moved for additional discovery, requesting that he be permitted to

depose prosecuting attorneys Frank Berry and Michael Boggess, in addition to Cisco

employees Richard Clark, Diane Olsen, and Michael Volpi. 

Habeas Rule 6(a) provides that 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 cause shown grants leave to do so, but

not otherwise." Good cause for discovery under Rule 6(a) is shown “where specific

Case 4:03-cv-03668-PJH Document 91 Filed 06/02/06 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

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 . . .” Pham v.

Terhune, 400 F.3d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286, 299

(1969)). The Ninth Circuit has also described this standard as being that discovery must be

allowed when it is “essential” for the petitioner to “develop fully” his or her underlying claim. 

Id. (quoting Jones v. Wood, 114 F.3d 1002, 1009 (9th Cir. 1997)). Where the evidence

sought via a petitioner’s discovery request “may well contain favorable, material

information,” the Ninth Circuit has held that it is “essential,” and that the district court is

required to grant the petitioner’s request pursuant to Rule 6(a). Id.

Although the discovery standard recently articulated by the Ninth Circuit is a

permissive one, it is not without limits. The court concludes that Hawkins has not shown

good cause for discovery with respect to Clark, Olsen, and Volpi, and DENIES his request. 

The court also concludes that given the fact that Berry has submitted a declaration

attesting that he was unaware of the witnesses’ overlapping financial interests, Hawkins

has not shown good cause to depose Berry. The court therefore DENIES Hawkins’ request

with respect to Berry as well. However, the court will permit Hawkins to depose Boggess in

connection with his prosecutorial misconduct claim. Hawkins is advised that NO

FURTHER DISCOVERY WILL BE PERMITTED in the context of these habeas

proceedings.

The parties shall have no more than sixty days from the date of this order to

complete the requested deposition. Within seven days of completion of the deposition,

Hawkins shall file and serve a statement regarding the completion of the discovery. Within

21 days of completion of the deposition, Hawkins is ordered to file a supplemental brief

addressing the impact of the additional testimony on claim five. The state shall file and

serve its supplemental opposition fourteen days after Hawkins’ opening brief. Hawkins

may file and serve a reply, if any, no later than seven days after the state’s supplemental

opposition. Given the numerous extensions already granted in this case, NO FURTHER

Case 4:03-cv-03668-PJH Document 91 Filed 06/02/06 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

EXTENSIONS OF THE ABOVE DEADLINES WILL BE PERMITTED. Upon the

completion of this discovery and supplemental briefing, the court will consider the case fully

briefed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 2, 2006 _____________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:03-cv-03668-PJH Document 91 Filed 06/02/06 Page 3 of 3