Thomas v. Yates

Filing 79

ORDER Directing Petitioner and Respondent to Submit Supplemental Briefing, signed by Magistrate Judge John M. Dixon, Jr on 10/15/2010.(Case Management Deadline: 11/12/2010) (Martin, S)

(HC) Thomas v. Yates

Doc. 79

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
U . S . D is t r ic t C o u r t E. D . C a lifo r n ia

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

BRIAN THOMAS,

) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) ) MATTHEW CATE, ) ) Respondent. ) ____________________________________)

1:05-CV-01198-LJO-JMD-HC ORDER DIRECTING PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT TO SUBMIT SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING

Petitioner Brian Thomas ("Petitioner") is a state prisoner proceeding with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On March 19, 2009, the Court scheduled an evidentiary hearing in this matter in order to permit Petitioner to present evidence that article V, section 8(b) of the California Constitution created a significant risk of prolonging Petitioner's incarceration and therefore violated Petitioner's rights under the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution. (Doc. 27). On July 10, 2009, Petitioner filed a request for leave to propound discovery pursuant to Rule 6 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. (Doc. 36). The Court granted Petitioner's request for leave to propound discovery on July 21, 2009. (Doc. 38). Subsequently, Petitioner filed a motion to compel discovery on August 31, 2009. (Doc. 48). On October 19, 2009, the parties filed a Joint Statement regarding the parties' outstanding discovery disputes. (Doc. 19). 1
Dockets.Justia.com

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 . D is t r ic t C o u r t E. D . C a lifo r n ia

On February 19, 2010, the Court granted in part and denied in part Petitioner's motion to compel. On April 5, 2010, the Court granted and denied in part Petitioner's motion to compel regarding outstanding discovery disputes. On July 30, 2010, Petitioner filed a motion seeking additional discovery. Respondent filed an opposition to Petitioner's motion on August 20, 2010, to which Petitioner filed a reply on August 26, 2010. Once discovery has been granted in a habeas case, as here, the district court retains the discretion to limit the scope and extent of the discovery. See Rule 6(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases; Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899, 909 (1997) ("Rule 6(a) makes it clear that the scope and extent of such discovery is a matter confided to the discretion of the District Court"); Williams v. Hall, 648 F.Supp.2d 1222, 1227 (C.D. Cal. 2009) (Stating that "a district court has discretion to limit the scope of discovery in habeas cases"). In light of the extensive discovery Petitioner has already been afforded, Petitioner shall file a brief discussing the current evidence Petitioner has in his possession and whether such evidence is sufficient to meet the relevant evidentiary burden under Garner v. Jones, 529 U.S. 244, 249-50 (2000). Accordingly, the Court hereby orders Petitioner to submit his brief within twenty days of this order; Respondent is to file a reply brief within twenty days after the filing of Petitioner's brief.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: hlked6 October 15, 2010 /s/ John M. Dixon UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2