Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00865/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00865-4/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

ALVIN DALTON,

Petitioner,

v.

KATAVICH,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:15-cv-00865-AWI-EPG-HC

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

(ECF No. 32) 

Petitioner is proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2254. 

On October 8, 2015, Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin denied Petitioner’s motion for 

discovery of electronically stored information. Petitioner sought the court reporter’s original 

tape recordings of Petitioner’s trial to prove judicial bias and show that the biased remarks by the 

trial judge are not in the Reporter’s Transcript on Appeal. Petitioner claimed that the trial judge 

made a biased and prejudicial remark on the record between the testimony that is on lines 22 

through 25 of page 353 of the Reporter’s Transcript, but the remark is not part of the Reporter’s 

Transcript. Judge Austin explained that Petitioner has not shown good cause for his request of 

electronically stored information and the fact that counsel changed to another line of questioning 

is not sufficient evidence and good cause for the Court to grant the motion for discovery. (ECF 

No. 29). 

Case 1:15-cv-00865-AWI-EPG Document 36 Filed 11/05/15 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

On October 19, 2015, Petitioner filed objections to Judge Austin’s order denying the 

motion for discovery. (ECF No. 32). Although Petitioner did not caption the request “Request 

for Reconsideration by the District Court of Magistrate Judge’s Ruling,” the Court liberally 

construes the objections as a motion for reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge’s ruling. See

Local Rule 303(c). The Court notes that Petitioner sought reconsideration within fourteen days 

from the date of service of the order denying the motion for discovery, so the request is timely. 

See Local Rule 303(b). Respondent did not file an opposition to the request for reconsideration 

within the time prescribed by Local Rule 303(d). 

In seeking reconsideration of Judge Austin’s order, Petitioner must show that Judge 

Austin’s decision was “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Local Rule 303(f); 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1)(A). However, there has been no showing that Judge Austin’s decision is “clearly 

erroneous.” Petitioner has not shown good cause for discovery of the electronically stored 

information. See Rule 6(a) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases; Jones v. Wood, 114 F.3d 

1002, 1009 (9th Cir. 1997). 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of 

the October 8, 2015 order denying his motion for discovery is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 4, 2015 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00865-AWI-EPG Document 36 Filed 11/05/15 Page 2 of 2