Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01782/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01782-0/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

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

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding in propria persona with a petition for writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The instant petition was filed on October 31, 2012. (Doc. 1). Before Respondent filed the 

Answer, Petitioner filed a motion to submit an addendum to the petition on January 28, 2013. (Doc. 

15). On February 6, 2013, Petitioner filed a motion for discovery, seeking copies of police reports 

used in a hearing on a suppression motion prior to trial. Such evidence, Petitioner maintains, is 

necessary to develop his Fourth Amendment claim. (Doc. 18). On March 15, 2013, Respondent filed 

the Answer (Doc. 21), and on April 16, 2013, Petitioner filed his Traverse. (Doc. 25). The matter is 

now ready for a decision on the merits.

RAYMOND G. WAGNER,

 Petitioner,

v.

RALPH M. DIAZ,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:12-cv-01782-LJO-JLT

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO SUBMIT 

ADDENDUM (Doc. 15)

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR DISCOVERY 

(Doc. 18)

Case 1:12-cv-01782-LJO-JLT Document 26 Filed 08/07/13 Page 1 of 3
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

DISCUSSION

Regarding the motion to submit an addendum to the petition, Respondent has not objected to 

such a motion and, indeed, filed the Answer after the documents in the proposed addendum had been 

filed with the Court. Accordingly, the Court will grant that motion and consider all documents 

contained in the addendum as part of the record in this case. 

Regarding Petitioner’s motion for discovery, the writ of habeas corpus is not a proceeding in 

the original criminal prosecution but an independent civil suit.” Riddle v. Dyche, 262 U.S. 333, 335-

336, 43 S.Ct. 555, 555 (1923); See, e.g. Keeney v. Tamayo-Reyes, 504 U.S. 1, 14, 112 S.Ct. 1715, 

1722 (1992) (O’Connor, J., dissenting). A habeas proceeding does not proceed to “trial” and 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). Instead, modern habeas corpus procedure has the same function as an ordinary 

appeal. Anderson v. Butler, 886 F.2d 111, 113 (5th Cir. 1989); O’Neal v. McAnnich, 513 U.S. 440, 

442, 115 S.Ct. 992 (1995) (federal court’s function in habeas corpus proceedings is to “review errors 

in state criminal trials” (emphasis omitted)). Indeed, the United States Supreme Court recently 

reaffirmed that, under AEDPA review, "evidence introduced in federal court has no bearing on § 

2254(d)(1) review. If a claim has been adjudicated on the merits by a state court, a federal habeas 

petitioner must overcome the limitations of § 2254(d)(1) on the record that was before that state 

court." Cullen v. Pinholster, ___U.S. ___, 131 S.Ct. 1388, 1400 (2011)(emphasis supplied); see 28 

U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1)(setting forth the applicable standard for federal habeas review as whether the state 

court adjudication was “contrary to” or an “unreasonable application” of “clearly established federal 

law”). 

As a result, a habeas petitioner does not have the right to inquire into all matters which are 

relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action, whether admissible at trial or not. Harris, 

394 U.S. at 297. “Such a broad-ranging preliminary inquiry is neither necessary nor appropriate in the 

context of a habeas corpus proceeding.” Id. Elaborate discovery procedures would cause substantial 

delay to prisoners and place a heavy burden upon courts, prison officials, prosecutors, and police. Id. 

Case 1:12-cv-01782-LJO-JLT Document 26 Filed 08/07/13 Page 2 of 3
3

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

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 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). 

Here, Petitioner has failed to show good cause for granted even limited discovery. All of the 

requested discovery relates to Petitioner’s Fourth Amendment claims, which, by federal law, cannot

be reviewed on the merits in these habeas proceedings. As Respondent correctly observes in the 

Answer, this Court is not authorized to conduct a full inquiry into the merits of Petitioner’s Fourth 

Amendment claims; rather, the only inquiry under the United States Supreme Court’s decision in 

Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465 (1976), is whether Petitioner had a “full and fair” chance to litigate his 

Fourth Amendment claims in state court. Since none of the proposed documents sought by Petitioner 

in his motion for discovery are relevant to that limited inquiry, the motion will be denied.

ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, the Court HEREBY ORDERS as follows:

1. Petitioner’s motion to submit an addendum to the petition (Doc. 15), is GRANTED; and,

2. Petitioner’s motion for discovery (Doc. 18), is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 6, 2013 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

Case 1:12-cv-01782-LJO-JLT Document 26 Filed 08/07/13 Page 3 of 3