Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_97-cv-00152/USCOURTS-caed-2_97-cv-00152-29/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 535
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Death Penalty
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Ptn for Writ of H/C - Stay of Execution

---

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

----oo0oo----

LANCE IAN OSBAND,

NO. CIV. S-97-0152 WBS KJM

Petitioner,

DEATH PENALTY CASE

v.

ORDER

STEVEN W. ORNOSKI,

 Acting Warden of San Quentin

 State Prison, 

Respondent.

_____________________________/

----oo0oo----

Petitioner moves for reconsideration of that portion

of the Magistrate Judge’s Order filed August 30, 2006, denying

petitioner’s motion for discovery. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A)

allows for this court to reconsider pretrial orders of the

Magistrate Judge on non-dispositive motions “where it has been

shown that the magistrate judge’s order is clearly erroneous or

contrary to law.”

The court has reviewed the transcript of the

proceedings and pleadings before the Magistrate Judge, together

with the moving and opposing papers submitted on this motion for

reconsideration, and finds the Magistrate Judge’s Order of

Case 2:97-cv-00152-KJM-CSK Document 328 Filed 12/21/06 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

“There is no question that respondent has an obligation 1

that continues throughout petitioner’s legal proceedings, including

this one, to disclose favorable information to petitioner. See

Thomas v. Goldsmith, 979 F.2d 746, 749-750 (9th Cir. 1992);

Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 60 (1987).” Docket, Document

295, p. 5, l. 6-9.

Id., p. 5, l. 16-17, citing Ritchie, supra. 2

2

August 30, 2006 to be fully supported by the law and the

evidence. Petitioner mischaracterizes the Magistrate Judge’s

ruling to conclude that respondent’s duty under Brady v.

Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), to inquire into exculpatory

evidence does not extend into post-conviction proceedings. That

is not what the Magistrate Judge held. She acknowledged that

continuing duty, but correctly noted that “for better or worse, 1

Brady leaves it up to the state to decide what information must

be disclosed.”2

The Magistrate Judge’s decision to deny petitioner’s

request that the state be ordered to certify that it had

conducted a reasonable inquiry and that all available

exculpatory evidence would be disclosed, absent a more specific

showing that exculpatory evidence was being withheld, was

neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for

reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge’s Order filed August 30,

2006, be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.

DATED: December 19, 2006

Case 2:97-cv-00152-KJM-CSK Document 328 Filed 12/21/06 Page 2 of 2