Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01363/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01363-6/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL ALAN YOCOM,

Petitioner,

v.

LEA ANN CHRONES, Warden,

Respondent.

 /

CV F 05-1363 OWW SMS HC

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION

TO PRESERVE THE EVIDENCE

[Doc. 15]

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s “MOTION TO PRESERVE THE EVIDENCE,”

filed June 22, 2006. (Court Doc. 15.) Petitioner requests that the Court issue an order directing

the State of California to provide him with a tape recording of the second hearing dated May 5,

2005. Petitioner indicates that he was provided a copy of a tape recording from the first hearing;

however, it was recorded at a high rate of speed, and he was unable to access it. Petitioner

requests that the Court order that the requested evidence be released to Petitioner immediately,

and order Warden Kathy Mendoza Powers to appoint Petitioner an assistance to retrieve the

evidence, and provide him with a special tape recorder to review the tape recordings.

Petitioner’s request is DENIED. The Court cannot at this juncture order that prison

officials turn over tape recordings of the parole hearings. Respondent has not yet filed a response

to the petition and without reviewing the merits of the petition in detail, the Court cannot

Case 1:05-cv-01363-LJO-SMS Document 18 Filed 07/26/06 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

2

determine the applicability, if any, of the tape recordings to resolution of the instant petition. As

such, Petitioner’s motion is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 26, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01363-LJO-SMS Document 18 Filed 07/26/06 Page 2 of 2