Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02072/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02072-2/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL LENOIR SMITH, 

Petitioner, No. CIV S-06-2072 DFL KJM P

vs.

JAMES YATES, Warden,

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner is a state prison inmate proceeding pro se with a petition for a writ of

habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On April 4, 2007, he filed a motion for discovery and on

April 18, 2007, he filed a motion for meaningful access to the courts.

I. Discovery Motion

Petitioner seeks a number of sheriff’s department reports on his own arrest and on

the arrest of Tyrone Watts and any reports on whether Watts worked as an informant. 

A habeas petitioner is not entitled to discovery as a matter of course, but only

when 

specific 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 . . . .

/////

Case 2:06-cv-02072-JKS-KJM Document 19 Filed 06/06/07 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

2

Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899, 909 (1997) (internal quotations and citations omitted); Rule

6(a), Rules Governing § 2254 Cases. Petitioner has presented nothing but a list of the

information he seeks and has made no attempt to show how it would bolster his underlying

habeas action.

II. Motion For Access To The Court

Petitioner alleges he has been placed in segregation on false charges and that his

access to the library is very limited by virtue of this placement. Nevertheless, on May 14, he

filed an opposition to respondent’s motion to dismiss. There are currently no other pending

deadlines in this case.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s April 4, 2007 motion for discovery is denied; and

2. Petitioner’s April 18, 2007 motion for meaningful access to the courts is

denied.

DATED: June 5, 2007. 

2

smit2072.mot

Case 2:06-cv-02072-JKS-KJM Document 19 Filed 06/06/07 Page 2 of 2