1

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

MARK BRNOVICH

ATTORNEY GENERAL

(FIRM STATE BAR NO. 14000)

TANJA K. KELLY

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL

CRIMINAL APPEALS SECTION

400 WEST CONGRESS, BLDG. S–315

TUCSON, ARIZONA 85701–1367

TELEPHONE: (520) 628–6520

TANJA.KELLY@AZAG.GOV

CADOCKET@AZAG.GOV

(STATE BAR NUMBER 25205)

ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENTS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Reynard Gordon,

Petitioner,

-vsCharles L. Ryan, et al.,

Respondents.

CV–18-00030-TUC-CKJ (JR)

RESPONSE TO DEMAND TO 

PRODUCE DOCUMENTS.

Petitioner Reynard Gordon filed a demand for the production of documents 

seeking the following:

1. Bank records indicating that he stole $90,000 from the victim;

2. The identity of the sheriffs involved in a June 23, 2016 attempt to contact 

the victim and a copy of their report;

3. A copy of the sheriff’s report describing that Gordon displayed a firearm;

4. A copy of any of his co-defendant’s statements and her qualifications to 

make such statements;

5. The identity of the doctor who evaluated the victim and the doctor’s 

“credentials” and gender of that doctor;

6. A copy of the search warrant executed on June 29, 2016 on the victim’s 

residence;

Case 4:18-cv-00030-CKJ-JR Document 18 Filed 08/16/18 Page 1 of 4
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

7. Bank records that demonstrate that he cashed checks against the victim’s 

account;

8. A copy of the power of attorney he possessed for the victim; and

9. The identity of the government to which Gordon has stated that he is 

disassociated from.

(Dkt. 17.) Gordon states only that he has the “right to review such documents” 

under the “rules of discovery.” (Id. at 2, 7.)

All of the documents requested by Gordon relate to Respondents’ recital of 

the case summary contained in the adult probation disposition sheet created to 

assist the state trial court judge in sentencing. Respondents attached the adult 

probation disposition sheet that was the source of that information to their limited 

answer as Exhibit A. 

Respondents respectfully oppose Gordon’s motion. Respondents have 

already served Gordon with copies of every document they have filed in this Court. 

To the extent Gordon is requesting copies of anything else, there “is no federal 

right, constitutional or otherwise, to discovery in habeas proceedings as a general 

matter.” Campbell v. Blodgett, 982 F.2d 1356, 1358 (9th Cir. 1993) (citing Harris 

v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286, 296 (1969)); see also Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899, 

904 (1997) (“A habeas petitioner, unlike the usual civil litigant in federal court, is 

not entitled to discovery as a matter of ordinary course.”); Bittaker v. Woodford, 

331 F.3d 715, 728 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Parties in habeas cases, unlike those in 

ordinary civil cases, have no right to discovery.”). 

Although this Court “may, for good cause shown, authorize a party to 

conduct discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and may limit the 

extent of discovery,” Rule 6(a), Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, habeas corpus 

review “was never meant to be a fishing expedition for habeas petitioners to 

‘explore their case in search of its existence.’” Rich v. Calderon, 187 F.3d 1064, 

1067 (9th Cir. 1999) (quoting Calderon v. United States Dist. Ct. (Nicolaus), 98 

Case 4:18-cv-00030-CKJ-JR Document 18 Filed 08/16/18 Page 2 of 4
3

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

F.3d 1102, 1106 (9th Cir. 1996)). Habeas Rule 6(a) provides, in pertinent part:

(a) Leave of Court Required. A judge may, for good cause, authorize a party to conduct discovery under the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure and may limit the extent of discovery. If necessary for effective discovery, the judge must appoint an 

attorney for a petitioner who qualifies to have counsel 

appointed under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A.

(b) Requesting Discovery. A party requesting discovery must provide reasons for the request. The request must also include any proposed interrogatories and requests for 

admission, and must specify any requested documents.

Gordon has not stated any reason for his request and has not demonstrated good 

cause for the production of documents. Nor is it apparent how the documents he 

requests are relevant to Respondents’ argument the habeas petition should be

stayed or dismissed without prejudice because all of Gordon’s claims are 

unexhausted but not yet procedurally defaulted. 

In sum, Gordon has not demonstrated good cause or a need for additional 

documents in order to reply to Respondent’s limited answer and this Court should 

deny his request for production of documents. 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 16th day of August, 2018.

Assistant Attorney General

Attorneys for Respondents 

Mark Brnovich

Attorney General

Joseph T. Maziarz

Chief Counsel

/s/Tanja K. Kelly

 

Case 4:18-cv-00030-CKJ-JR Document 18 Filed 08/16/18 Page 3 of 4
4

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

I hereby certify that on August 16, 2018, I served the attached document by mail on the following, who are not registered participants of the ECF System.

Petitioner, Pro Se

Reynard:Gordon # 324635

A.S.P.C. Graham Unit

896 South Cook Road

Safford, Arizona 85546

/s/L. Fielding

7233851

Case 4:18-cv-00030-CKJ-JR Document 18 Filed 08/16/18 Page 4 of 4