Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01365/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01365-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

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

ANTHONY-STEVEN WRIGHT,

Petitioner,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et.al.,

Respondents.

 /

CV F 06-1365 OWW DLB HC

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

MISCELLANEOUS MOTIONS

[Docs. 4,5,8,9,10]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

On October 5, 2006, Petitioner filed a motion for an emergency hearing and a motion for

the issuance of subpoenas duces tecum. (Court Docs. 4, 5.) On November 6, 2006, Petitioner

filed a motion for immediate assistance, motion for movants to accept his § 2241 petition, and

motion for Respondents to return legal paperwork. (Court Docs. 8, 9, 10.) 

With regard to Petitioner’s motion for an emergency hearing, Petitioner requests that the

Court grant him relief on his petition. Petitioner is advised that in an order issued concurrently

herewith, the Court has found Petitioner’s petition to be deficient and has directed that an

amended petition be filed. Accordingly, there is no hearing necessary in the instant case, and

Petitioner’s motion is DENIED.

With regard to Petitioner’s motion for the issuance of subpoenas duces tecum, it is too

without merit. Petitioner is advised that unlike other civil litigation, a habeas corpus petitioner is

Case 1:06-cv-01365-LJO -DLB Document 13 Filed 11/29/06 Page 1 of 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

2

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). 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. at 295, 89 S.Ct. at

1089). Based on the foregoing, Petitioner’s request for discovery, is DENIED.

In his motion for immediate assistance, Petitioner contends that he is currently placed in

the security housing unit, and prison officials are retaliating against him. Petitioner requests that

the Court issued an order to show cause. Petitioner is in essence requesting a temporary

restraining order. Rule 65(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows the Court to issue a

temporary restraining order. The Court can issue a temporary restraining order if the moving

party has shown either "(1) a likelihood of success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable

injury, or (2) the existence of serious questions going to the merits and the balance of hardships

tipping in [the moving party's] favor." Oakland Tribune, Inc. v. Chronicle Publishing Company,

Inc., 762 F.2d 1374, 1376 (9th Cir. 1985), quoting Apple Computer, Inc. v. Formula

International, Inc., 725 F.2d 521, 523 (9th Cir. 1984). The two formulations represent two points

on a sliding scale with the focal point being the degree of irreparable injury shown. Oakland

Tribune, 762 F.2d at 1376. "Under either formulation of the test, plaintiff must demonstrate that

there exists a significant threat of irreparable injury." Id. In the absence of a significant showing

of irreparable injury, the Court need not reach the issue of likelihood of success on the merits. 

Id. To obtain a preliminary injunction, a party must demonstrate either 1) a combination of

probable success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury, or 2) the existence of

serious questions going to the merits and that the balance of hardships tips sharply in its favor.

First Brands Corp. v. Fred Meyer, Inc., 809 F.2d 1378, 1381 (9th Cir.1987

Case 1:06-cv-01365-LJO -DLB Document 13 Filed 11/29/06 Page 2 of 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

3

Here, as previously stated, the Court is concurrently issuing an order directing Petitioner

to file an amended petition, as the Court cannot determine whether Petitioner has stated a claim

for relief under § 2241. Thus, the Court cannot determine the likelihood of success on the merits

or the existence of serious questions going to the merits. Further, Petitioner is seeking to

challenge the conditions of his confinement, which must be raised via Bivens v. Six Unknown

Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Accordingly, Petitioner’s

motion for immediate assistance must be DENIED. 

 With regard to Petitioner’s motion for “Movant’s original filing 2241 in Docket Entry #1

in the above case be accepted,” it is without merit, as Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas

corpus has been filed and reviewed by this Court. Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion is without

merit.

Lastly, with regard to Petitioner’s motion for Respondents to return his “42 legal pages

that were illegally confiscated by R. Luke on 10-6-06 mailroom officer,” it too must be denied. 

As with Petitioner’s motion for assistance, Petitioner’s instant motion is in essence a request for

a temporary restraining order. This motion is be DENIED for the same reasons that Petitioner’s

motion for immediate assistance is be denied. 

Based on the foregoing, Petitioner’s motions, filed October 5, 2006, and November 6,

2006, are DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: November 29, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01365-LJO -DLB Document 13 Filed 11/29/06 Page 3 of 3