Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01252/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01252-4/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

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding in propria persona with a petition for writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Petitioner filed his original petition on July 27, 2011, alleging four claims, two of which the 

Court determined to be unexhausted. (Doc. 1). Along with his petition, Petitioner requested a stay of 

proceedings to exhaust the unexhausted claims. (Doc. 3). On September 30, 2011, the Court granted 

the stay. (Doc. 9). On April 27, 2012, Petitioner filed the instant motion requesting that previously 

collected DNA evidence be tested by Respondent in order to further support Petitioner’s unexhausted 

claims of ineffective assistance of counsel in the California state courts. (Doc. 16). Petitioner 

MARCUS WHITAKER,

 Petitioner,

v.

WARDEN VIRGA,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:11-cv-01252-LJO-JLT

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION 

FOR PERFORMANCE OF DNA DISCOVERY 

(Doc. 16)

Case 1:11-cv-01252-LJO-JLT Document 24 Filed 11/27/12 Page 1 of 3
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

subsequently exhausted his unexhausted claims and, on October 17, 2012, filed the first amended 

petition. (Doc. 23). 

To the extent that Petitioner required such an order of performance of DNA testing in order to 

support his claims in the state courts, the issue is moot because the state courts have already rejected 

Petitioner’s claims. Moreover, state court was the appropriate forum in which to raise issues related to 

the state court’s adjudication of Petitioner claims.

To the extent that Petitioner claims to require such testing to support his contentions in these 

proceedings, the request--essentially one for discovery--is premature. The writ of habeas corpus is not 

a proceeding in the original criminal prosecution but an independent civil suit.” Riddle v. Dyche, 262 

U.S. 333, 335-336, 43 S.Ct. 555, 555 (1923); See, e.g. Keeney v. Tamayo-Reyes, 504 U.S. 1, 14, 112 

S.Ct. 1715, 1722 (1992) (O’Connor, J., dissenting). A habeas proceeding does not proceed to “trial” 

and unlike other civil litigation, a habeas corpus petitioner is not entitled to broad discovery. Bracy v. 

Gramley, 520 U.S. 899, 117 S.Ct. 1793, 1796-97 (1997); Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286, 295, 89 S.Ct. 

1082, 1088-89 (1969). Instead, modern habeas corpus procedure has the same function as an ordinary 

appeal. Anderson v. Butler, 886 F.2d 111, 113 (5th Cir. 1989); O’Neal v. McAnnich, 513 U.S. 440, 

442, 115 S.Ct. 992 (1995) (federal court’s function in habeas corpus proceedings is to “review errors 

in state criminal trials” (emphasis omitted)). Indeed, the United States Supreme Court recently 

reaffirmed that, under AEDPA review, "evidence introduced in federal court has no bearing on § 

2254(d)(1) review. If a claim has been adjudicated on the merits by a state court, a federal habeas 

petitioner must overcome the limitations of § 2254(d)(1) on the record that was before that state 

court." Cullen v. Pinholster, ___U.S. ___, 131 S.Ct. 1388, 1400 (2011)(emphasis supplied); see 28 

U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1)(setting forth the applicable standard for federal habeas review as whether the state 

court adjudication was “contrary to” or an “unreasonable application” of “clearly established federal 

law”). 

As a result, a habeas petitioner does not have the right to inquire into all matters which are 

relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action, whether admissible at trial or not. Harris, 

394 U.S. at 297. “Such a broad-ranging preliminary inquiry is neither necessary nor appropriate in the 

context of a habeas corpus proceeding.” Id. Elaborate discovery procedures would cause substantial 

Case 1:11-cv-01252-LJO-JLT Document 24 Filed 11/27/12 Page 2 of 3
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

delay to prisoners and place a heavy burden upon courts, prison officials, prosecutors, and police. Id. 

Although discovery is available pursuant to Rule 6, it is only granted at the Court’s discretion, and 

upon a showing of good cause. Bracy, 117 S.Ct. 1793, 1797; McDaniel v. United States Dist. Court 

(Jones), 127 F.3d 886, 888 (9th Cir. 1997); Jones v. Wood, 114 F.3d 1002, 1009 (9th Cir. 1997); Rule 

6(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254. The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 6 of the Rules 

Governing Section 2254 Cases emphasize that Rule 6 was not intended to extend to habeas corpus 

petitioners, as a matter of right, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure’s broad discovery provisions. 

Rule 6, Advisory Committee Notes (quoting Harris, 394 U.S. at295, 89 S.Ct. at 1089). Here, the 

Court has only recently ordered Respondent to file a response to the first amended petition. The case 

is still in the pleading stage and it is not clear at this juncture whether the case will proceed to a 

decision on the merits.

Accordingly, the Court will deny Petitioner’s motion without prejudice at this time as 

premature. Should it appear at some further point in the proceedings that such a motion would be 

proper, the Court will permit Petitioner to re-raise the issue.

ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for performance 

of DNA testing (Doc. 16), is DENIED without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 27, 2012 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

9j7khijed

Case 1:11-cv-01252-LJO-JLT Document 24 Filed 11/27/12 Page 3 of 3