Mendoza v. Cate

Filing 56

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 7/26/2013 DENYING, withiout prejudice, petitioner's 52 motion for discovery; petitioner may choose to renew his motion in accordance with this order. (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ARQUIMEDES MENDOZA,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:09-cv-1710 MCE DAD P

Petitioner,
v.

ORDER

MATTHEW CATE,
Respondent.

16
17

Petitioner’s April 26, 2013 motion entitled “Application and Request to Subpoena

18

Witness Take Depositions and Other Discovery; Request to Modify Briefing Schedule” came on

19

for hearing on July 26, 2013, at 10:00 a.m. in the chambers of the undersigned. Although

20

petitioner’s motion was scheduled for hearing pursuant to court order dated March 27, 2013, both

21

counsel for petitioner and counsel for respondent failed to appear at the hearing set by the court.

22
23

Upon review of the motion and opposition thereto, and good cause appearing therefor,
THE COURT ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:

24

1. Petitioner’s motion for discovery (ECF No. 52) is denied without prejudice;

25

2. If petitioner wishes to renew his motion, he shall address the impact of the decision in

26

Cullen v. Pinholster, ___ U.S. ___, 131 S. Ct. 1388 (2011) on his request for discovery and/or to

27

expand the record, and shall explain whether he has overcome the limitations imposed under 28

28

U.S.C. § 2254(d) in light of the evidence presented in state court; and
1

1

3. If petitioner fails to renew his motion for discovery within thirty days from the date of

2

this order, his habeas petition will be deemed submitted for decision without further order of

3

court.

4

Dated: July 26, 2013

5
6
7
8

DAD:8
Mendoza1710.oah(3)

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2