Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_99-cv-06112/USCOURTS-caed-1_99-cv-06112-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ronald C. Cook
Petitioner
William Duncan
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RONALD C. COOK, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

WILLIAM DUNCAN, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

)

___________________________________ )

CV F 99-6112 WMW HC

ORDER DENYING MOTION

FOR LEAVE TO FILE

ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS AND

GRANTING EX PARTE

APPLICATIONS TO FILE

TYPEWRITTEN MOTION

AND REPLY

[Docs. 82, 83, 87]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On September 20, 2005, Petitioner filed a motion for leave to

file an additional exhibit identified as Exhibit 13 – A. Respondent opposes this motion.

Petitioner identifies the exhibit as “a 9 page summary of his medical and mental

health records at California prisons from inception of incarceration 1991 to June 2005, 

prepared by a prison doctors, summarizing his mental health evaluations [based on the same

records which are now before the Court in 9 volumes, numbering over 2000 pages, marked

EXHIBIT 13.]” Petitioner concedes that final briefing was completed in this case on March

Case 1:99-cv-06112-WMW Document 88 Filed 11/03/05 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 2

9, 2005, when Petitioner filed his amended traverse. The matter is now under submission.

 Respondent opposes Petitioner’s motion on the ground that the exhibit which he

seeks to file is based on records already before the Court. Respondent argues that the exhibit

adds nothing relevant to the issue before this court, i.e., Petitioner’s competence at the time

of trial. Respondent also opposes Petitioner’s motion on the ground that the new exhibit is

an incomplete synopsis which cannot be properly substituted for the voluminous records 

now before the Court. 

 After considering the parties’ arguments, the Court concludes that Petitioner’s

proposed additional exhibit is merely cumulative of what is already before the Court. The

Court therefore finds no basis for the admission of this exhibit, months after this case has

been taken under submission. Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion to file an additional exhibit,

Exhibit 13 – A, is HEREBY DENIED. Petitioner’s applications, filed September 20, 2005,

and October 4, 2005, to file a type written motion and reply are HEREBY GRANTED.IT IS

SO ORDERED.

Mmkd34Dated: November 3, 2005 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:99-cv-06112-WMW Document 88 Filed 11/03/05 Page 2 of 2