Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06541/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06541-1/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

U.S . District Court

 E. D . California cd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN ANDREW JUAREZ, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

JEANNE WOODFORD, Director, )

)

Respondent. )

____________________________________)

CV F 04 6541 OWW LJO HC 

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

[Doc. #20]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On May 2, 2005, Petitioner requested the Court to compel discovery. Petitioner seeks copies

of appellate transcripts for purposes of exhaustion. 

“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). 

However, 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)). A habeas proceeding does not proceed to “trial” and unlike other civil

Case 1:04-cv-06541-OWW -LJO Document 21 Filed 05/17/05 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

U.S . District Court

 E. D . California cd 2

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). 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. 

Petitioner does not demonstrate good cause for his request for discovery. Petitioner does not

state why the information is needed or why said discovery is relevant to a determination of the merits

of the petition. Accordingly, Petitioner's request for discovery is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 16, 2005 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06541-OWW -LJO Document 21 Filed 05/17/05 Page 2 of 2