Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00944/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00944-2/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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RUBEN MONTEMAYOR,

Petitioner,

v.

WARDEN M.S. EVANS,

Respondent.

 /

1: 05 CV 00944 WMW HC

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF

MANDATE

[Doc. 17]

Petitioner is a prisoner proceeding with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. Section 2254. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), the parties have consented to the

jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge. On March 3, 2008, Petitioner filed a request for

discovery, labeled as a petition for writ of mandate.

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). 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

Case 1:05-cv-00944-WMW Document 18 Filed 06/11/08 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

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). 

In this case, Petitioner seeks discovery from the California Attorney General of his accuser’s

work attendance sheet and source of medical records. Petitioner does not demonstrate how this

material is relevant to any of the claims in his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Further, this case is

stayed pursuant to this court’s order of January 8, 2008. Accordingly, Petitioner’s request for

discovery is HEREBY DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 10, 2008 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00944-WMW Document 18 Filed 06/11/08 Page 2 of 2