Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00949/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00949-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Terrence Brownlee
Petitioner
A. P. Kane
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

U.S . District Court

 E. D . California cd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TERRENCE BROWNLEE, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

A. P. KANE, )

)

Respondent. )

____________________________________)

1:05-CV-0949 REC SMS HC 

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

MOTION FOR DISCOVERY

[Doc. #5]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On October 3, 2005, Petitioner requested the Court to compel

discovery of state court records. 

“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

litigation, a habeas corpus petitioner is not entitled to broad discovery. Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S.

Case 1:05-cv-00949-OWW -SMS Document 6 Filed 10/05/05 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

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 discovery request. Respondent will be

directed to lodge all relevant state court transcripts with his answer when and if Respondent is

directed to file a response. At this time, however, there is no need for Petitioner’s state court records. 

Accordingly, Petitioner's request for discovery is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 4, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00949-OWW -SMS Document 6 Filed 10/05/05 Page 2 of 2