Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_00-cv-20620/USCOURTS-cand-5_00-cv-20620-0/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

Order Denying Motion to Re-Order Case for Discovery

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.Rmw\HC old\HC.00\Snyder620disc.wpd

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRADLEY WILLIAM SNYDER, 

Petitioner,

 vs.

C.K. PLILER, Warden, 

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 00-20620-RMW (PR)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

RE-ORDER CASE FOR

DISCOVERY

Petitioner, a California state prisoner, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his state conviction and sentence. On September 30,

2003, the court denied petitioner’s petition and entered judgment in favor of respondent. On

October 30, 2003, petitioner filed a notice of appeal. On March 3, 2005, the Ninth Circuit Court

of Appeal denied petitioner’s request for a certificate of appealability. Pending before the court

is petitioner’s “Notice of Motion to Re-Order Case for Discovery.” 

In his motion, petitioner asserts that on July 12, 2002, Magistrate Patricia Trumbell

referred the case for discovery to Judge Howard R. Lloyd, however, petitioner never received

any discovery pursuant to that order. Petitioner also attaches an amended petition to his motion

and argues that this amended petition is not a second or successive petition. The court does not

agree.

No discovery is warranted in this closed case. Petitioner’s motion to re-order the case for

*E-FILED - 8/17/10*

Case 5:00-cv-20620-RMW Document 51 Filed 08/17/10 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

Order Denying Motion to Re-Order Case for Discovery

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.Rmw\HC old\HC.00\Snyder620disc.wpd 2

discovery is DENIED. Moreover, a district court must dismiss claims presented in a second or

successive habeas petition challenging the same conviction and sentence unless the claims

presented in the previous petition were denied for failure to exhaust. See 28 U.S.C. §

2244(b)(1); Babbitt v. Woodford, 177 F.3d 744, 745-46 (9th Cir. 1999). Additionally, a district

court must dismiss any new claims raised in a successive petition unless the petitioner received

an order from the court of appeals authorizing the district court to consider the petition. 

Here, the instant petition challenges the same conviction and sentence as petitioner’s

earlier habeas action, which was denied on the merits. Petitioner has not presented an order from

the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals authorizing this court to consider any new claims.

Accordingly, the court will not file petitioner’s amended petition unless and until petitioner

obtains the necessary order.

No further filings will be entertained in this closed matter.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: _______________ 

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

8/17/10

Case 5:00-cv-20620-RMW Document 51 Filed 08/17/10 Page 2 of 2