Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00873/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00873-4/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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RON MORTON, JR., )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

KATHY MENDOZA-POWERS, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

____________________________________)

1:06-CV-00873 OWW NEW (DLB) HC

ORDER VACATING ORDER TO SHOW

CAUSE ISSUED ON APRIL 20, 2007

[Doc. #17]

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S

MOTION FOR DISCOVERY

[Doc. #13]

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding with a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner is represented in this action by Joseph V. Camarata, Esq. Respondent

is represented in this action by Robert C. Cross, Esq., of the Office of the Attorney General.

Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s January 31, 2007, motion for discovery. Petitioner

has requested discovery of “[a]ll statistical documents, and/or all parole decision summary sheets, of

all initial parole consideration hearings, conducted for all indeterminately-sentenced prisoners for the

past five (5) years.” Petitioner’s Motion at 1-2. Respondent did not initially file a reply to said

motion. 

On March 12, 2007, the undersigned issued an order directing Respondent to reply to said

motion. The time for filing the reply passed and Respondent did not file a reply; therefore, on

April 20, 2007, the undersigned issued an order directing Respondent to show cause why sanctions

Case 1:06-cv-00873-OWW -GSA Document 19 Filed 05/03/07 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

27

28

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 2

should not be imposed for failure to reply to the Court’s order.

Respondent filed a response to the show cause order on April 24, 2007. Counsel for

Respondent states he had completed a response as ordered by the Court; however, he mistakenly

believed the response had been filed when it had not. This was apparently due to confusion caused

by a similar case in the Sacramento Division. See Jackson v. Carey, CIV-S-02-0946 FCD EFB P. In

that case, the same discovery had been requested and Counsel confused his completion of that

discovery with the instant matter. Good cause having been presented, and good cause appearing

therefor, the April 20, 2007, Order to Show Cause is VACATED.

In addition, Respondent has agreed to comply with Petitioner’s discovery request, and he has

filed said discovery with his response. The discovery is in the form of computer printouts which

show that eight life prisoners were successful at their initial parole suitability hearings within the last

five years. See Exhibit A, Response to Order to Show Cause.

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1) The Order to Show Cause of April 20, 2007, is VACATED; and

2) Petitioner’s Motion for Discovery of January 31, 2007, is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 2, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00873-OWW -GSA Document 19 Filed 05/03/07 Page 2 of 2