Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01304/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01304-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John A. Sorenson
Petitioner
Marion Spearman
Respondent

Document Text:

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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN A. SORENSON,

Petitioner,

v.

MARION SPEARMAN,

Respondent.

No. 2:15-cv-1304 DAD P

ORDER

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding through counsel with an application for a writ of 

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Respondent filed an answer on September 14, 2015. 

Petitioner’s traverse is due to be filed on October 14, 2015. 

On September 10, 2015, petitioner filed a document entitled “Request for Fees and Order 

for Subpoena’s Duces Tecum.” (ECF No. 15.) Therein, petitioner requests that this court issue 

two subpoenas to produce documents from the Tehama County District Attorney and the 

California Highway Patrol (CHP), Red Bluff Station, regarding whether a CHP Officer Burson 

was available to appear at a February, 2012 preliminary hearing held in the state court criminal 

proceedings which resulted in the conviction petitioner is challenging in these federal habeas 

proceedings. (Id. at 1-2.) Petitioner apparently contends that the documents he seeks are relevant 

to support his federal habeas claim that the state trial court erred in finding good cause to continue 

his preliminary hearing. 

Case 2:15-cv-01304-DB Document 19 Filed 09/23/15 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

Until this court has the opportunity to conduct a thorough review of the merits of 

petitioner's claims, the undersigned cannot determine whether there is a factual dispute 

necessitating an evidentiary hearing or supplementation of the record in this case. Following such 

a review, the court will sua sponte issue an order for an evidentiary hearing or for expansion of 

the record, should it find that such a course of action is necessary and appropriate. Accordingly, 

petitioner’s September 10, 2015 request for the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum will be 

denied at this time without prejudice to the court’s consideration of whether an evidentiary 

hearing or supplementation of the record is called for at the appropriate time. 

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s September 10, 

2015 request for the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum (ECF No. 15) is denied without 

prejudice.

Dated: September 22, 2015

DAD:8

Sorenson1304.exp

Case 2:15-cv-01304-DB Document 19 Filed 09/23/15 Page 2 of 2