Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00873/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00873-2/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

RON MORTON, JR., )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

)

KATHY MENDOZA-POWERS, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

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

ORDER DIRECTING RESPONDENT

TO REPLY TO PETITIONER’S MOTION

[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.

Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s January 31, 2007, Motion for Discovery. Petitioner

requests 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 has not filed a reply to said motion. 

Discovery is available at the Court’s discretion and upon a showing of good cause. 

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 Cases. 

However, unlike other civil litigation, a habeas corpus petitioner is not entitled to broad discovery. 

Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899, 904 (1997); Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286, 295 (1969). 

Case 1:06-cv-00873-OWW -GSA Document 16 Filed 03/12/07 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

Before the Court can make an informed decision on the motion, more information is needed.

Respondent is directed to respond and address the subject matter of said motion. The Court requires

information on whether such documentation exists, and if so, the amount of documentation, whether

the documentation is readily available to Respondent, the amount of time Respondent would need to

compile the documentation, and the overall burden that would be placed on Respondent in order to

comply with Petitioner’s request. 

Accordingly, Respondent is HEREBY DIRECTED to reply to Petitioner’s motion within

twenty (20) days of the date of service of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 9, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00873-OWW -GSA Document 16 Filed 03/12/07 Page 2 of 2