Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01162/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01162-3/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

—o0o—

JOHN ANDREW SHEPHEARD, II, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

R. KIRKLAND, Warden, et al., )

)

Respondents. )

 )

1:05-cv-01162-LJO-TAG HC

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE

PETITIONER’S EX PARTE MOTION FOR

COPY OF AUDIO CASSETTE

(Doc. 9)

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

BACKGROUND

On September 6, 2005, Petitioner filed the instant habeas petition challenging his

conviction in Fresno County Superior Court for murder, a violation of California Penal Code

§ 187, and his resulting sentence of fifty years-to-life. (Doc. 1). On April 10, 2006, Petitioner

filed the instant ex parte motion for request ordering Respondent to furnish Petitioner with copies

of an audio cassette as discovery in this case. (Doc. 9). 

The Court must of course conduct a preliminary screening of each habeas petition

pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases. In that screening, the Court must

dismiss a petition "[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the petition . . . that the petitioner is not

entitled to relief." Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases; Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d

490 (9th Cir.1990). Otherwise, the Court will order Respondent to respond to the petition. Rule

5 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases. Thereafter, Petitioner may file a traverse should he

Case 1:05-cv-01162-AWI -JMD Document 12 Filed 02/26/07 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

2

choose to do so. When that occurs, the Court will be in a position to consider the merits of the

petition. 

 At this stage of the proceedings, the Court has yet to conduct its preliminary screening of

the instant petition. Moreover, Respondent has not been ordered to enter an appearance in the

case or to file a response. Accordingly, any request by Petitioner regarding discovery of evidence

or for Respondent to supply him with copies of any materials is entirely premature. If and when

the case reaches a point where it appears to the Court that Petitioner requires access to the audio

cassette or any other materials in order to properly prepare his traverse, the Court will entertain a

motion from Petitioner regarding the same. Until that time, such a motion is unnecessary,

premature, and without merit.

ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner’s Ex Parte Motion for Request Ordering

Respondent’s to Furnish Petitioner With A Copy of the Audio Cassette Recording (Doc. 9), is

DENIED without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 23, 2007 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:05-cv-01162-AWI -JMD Document 12 Filed 02/26/07 Page 2 of 2