Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00865/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00865-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Alvin Dalton
Petitioner
Katavich
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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALVIN DALTON,

Petitioner,

v.

KATAVICH,

Respondent.

1:15-cv-00865-AWI-GSA-HC

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S 

MOTION FOR DISCOVERY (ECF No. 14)

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in a habeas corpus action pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2254. On June 25, 2015, Petitioner filed a motion to compel discovery of electronically 

stored information. (ECF No. 14). Petitioner seeks 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. 

Although discovery is available pursuant to Rule 6 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 

Cases, it is only granted at the Court’s discretion, and upon a showing of good cause. Bracy v. 

Gramley, 520 U.S. 899, 904 (1997); 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 Cases. Good cause is shown “where specific allegations before 

the court show reason to believe that the petitioner may, if the facts are fully developed, be able 

to demonstrate that he is . . . entitled to relief.” Bracy, 520 U.S. at 908-09 (citing Harris v. 

Case 1:15-cv-00865-AWI-EPG Document 29 Filed 10/08/15 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

Nelson, 394 U.S. 287 (1969). Discovery will not be allowed so that the petition can “explore 

[his] case in search of its existence,” looking for new constitutional claims. See Rich v. 

Calderon, 187 F.3d 1064, 1067 (9th Cir. 1999). If good cause is shown, the extent and scope of 

discovery is within the court’s discretion. See Rule 6(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254

Cases.

Ordinarily, we presume that public officials have “properly discharged their official 

duties.” United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 464 (1996) (internal quotation omitted). At 

this time, Petitioner has not rebutted this presumption. Petitioner claims that the trial judge made 

a biased and prejudicial remark on the record between lines 24 and 25 of page 353 of the 

Reporter’s Transcript. Petitioner claims, however, that this remark is not part of the Reporter’s 

Transcript. Petitioner has failed to present any objective evidence that would substantiate the 

contentions that the trial judge made the statement: “Stop it, he killed her mother for Christ’s 

sake” in the presence of the jury and news media and then improperly removed this statement 

from the trial transcripts. Petitioner claims that the missing comment occurred between the 

testimony that is on page 353 lines 22 through 25 of the Reporter’s Transcript. The Court notes 

that page 353 of the Reporter’s Transcript has a question on lines 22 and 23, an answer on line 

24, and another question on line 25. The fact that counsel changed to another line of questioning 

is not sufficient evidence and good cause for the Court to grant Petitioner’s motion for discovery. 

Therefore, Petitioner has not shown good cause and is not entitled to discovery of the 

electronically stored information at this time.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for discovery is 

DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 8, 2015 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00865-AWI-EPG Document 29 Filed 10/08/15 Page 2 of 2