Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05080/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05080-1/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

EDUARDO ANTHONY CRUZ,

Petitioner,

v.

MIKE KNOWLES, WARDEN,

Respondent.

 /

CV F 04-5080 REC DLB HC

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S 

MOTION FOR DISCOVERY 

[Doc. 26]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus on December 22, 2003. 

Respondent filed an answer on August 3, 2004, and Petitioner filed a traverse on November 15,

2004. In separate Findings and Recommendations issued concurrently herewith, the Court has

recommended that the instant petition be denied and judgement be entered in favor of

Respondent. 

On June 27, 2005, Petitioner filed a motion “for leave of the court for an order requiring

respondent to produce the record regarding petitioner’s prior conviction.” (Court Doc. 26.) In

the motion, Petitioner requests that pursuant to Rule 6(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254

cases, the Court direct Respondent to produce a copy of his prior strike convictions.

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.

Case 1:04-cv-05080-REC -DLB Document 33 Filed 08/22/05 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

286, 295, 89 S.Ct. 1082, 1088-89 (1969). 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).

Petitioner contends that the record for the Los Angeles County Superior Court Case will

clearly show that his two 1991 prior convictions arose from a single criminal act, kidnaping for

robbery, as distinguished from multiple acts committed in an indivisible course of conduct. 

Petitioner contends such evidence will demonstrate that his trial counsel was ineffective for

failing to investigate, submit documentation, and argue that Petitioner had only one strike under

California’s Three Strikes Law.

 Petitioner’s request must be denied. As stated in the Findings and Recommendations,

California law supports the trial court’s finding that prior convictions may be considered as

separate strikes even if they arose out of a single course of criminal conduct, and Petitioner’s

claim to the contrary is without merit. See Cal. Pen. Code § 667; People v. Fuhrman, 16 Cal.4th

930, 937-941 (1997); People v. Benson, 18 Cal.4th 24 (1998). Further, as stated in the Findings

and Recommendations, the trial court was fully aware of Petitioner’s position that the two

convictions constituted a single strike. Thus, Petitioner has not demonstrated good cause for

requiring the Court to order Respondent to produce a copy of his 1991 strike convictions and

Petitioner’s request is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 22, 2005 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05080-REC -DLB Document 33 Filed 08/22/05 Page 2 of 2