Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00981/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00981-8/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

 Under Rule 6 of the Rules Governing § 2254 cases, a judge may authorize discovery

upon a showing of good cause. Also, the person requesting discovery must provide the court

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PETER A. TAYLOR,

Petitioner, No. CIV-S-04-0981 LKK KJM P 

vs.

TOM L. CAREY, 

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner is a California prisoner proceeding pro se with an application for writ

of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner challenges the fact that he has been denied

parole.

On December 26, 2006, plaintiff filed a “Motion for Discovery. . . .” First,

petitioner asks for permission to conduct discovery concerning evidence to support plaintiff’s

claim that the Board of Prison Terms (BPT) has a policy of denying parole to all persons serving

indeterminate sentences. However, petitioner fails to set forth which documents he would seek,

which interrogatories he might ask and to whom they would be directed or whom plaintiff might

depose and why.1

 In short, plaintiff’s request is vague and will be denied.

Case 2:04-cv-00981-LKK -KJM Document 35 Filed 08/22/07 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 with the proposed discovery requests.

2

Petitioner also asks that the court permit him to discover “information regarding

the board’s backlog hearings.” Mot. at 3:11-21. However, petitioner fails to present anything

suggesting that information regarding the BPT’s backlog would help his case in any way. This

request will be denied. 

Petitioner asks that the court strike portions of respondent’s answer in which

respondent refers to petitioner as a “convicted murderer.” Mot. at 3:11-21. Petitioner does not

point to where respondent makes this assertion, nor does he suggest how this hurts his case. In

addressing the merits of petitioner’s habeas petition the court will review petitioner’s convictions

without reference to the manner in which respondent characterizes those convictions. This

request will be denied.

Petitioner asks that the court take judicial notice of petitioner’s most recent

“psych” report. Mot. at 4:5-10. The court will not take judicial notice of the report, but will

consider the report in conjunction with the merits of petitioner’s application for writ of habeas

corpus to the extent it is relevant to the claims presented therein. 

Finally, petitioner asks that the court take judicial notice of the fact that his most

recent parole hearing has been delayed. However, petitioner fails to suggest how this fact is

relevant to the case at hand. This request will be denied.

For all of the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s December 26, 2006 “Motion for

Discovery. . . .” will be denied in its entirety. 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s

December 26, 2006 “Motion for Discovery. . . .” is denied. 

DATED: August 22, 2007.

1 tayl0981.dis

Case 2:04-cv-00981-LKK -KJM Document 35 Filed 08/22/07 Page 2 of 2