Martinez v. Director of CDCR

Filing 62

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 5/19/14 ORDERING that Petitioners motion to compel discovery (Doc. No. 37 ) is DENIED without prejudice to its sua sponte renewal by the court; Petitioners motion for an extension of time to fil e a traverse (Doc. No. 58 ) is GRANTED. Petitioners traverse (Doc. No. 61 ) is deemed timely filed; Petitioners motion for leave to file an oversized brief in support of his traverse (Doc. No. 60 ) is denied as unnecessary; and this matter is now submitted for decision. (Dillon, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DEREK MARTINEZ,

12

Petitioner,

13
14

No. 2:12-cv-2273 WBS DAD P

v.

ORDER

DIRECTOR OF CDCR,

15

Respondent.

16
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas

17
18

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pending before the court are several of petitioner’s

19

motions.

20

First, petitioner has filed a motion to compel discovery, which respondent has opposed.

21

Until this court has the opportunity to conduct a review of the merits of petitioner’s claims, the

22

court cannot determine whether there is good cause to conduct discovery in this habeas action.

23

See Rule 6(a), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Following the court’s review of the merits

24

of petitioner’s claims, the court will sua sponte issue an order authorizing petitioner to conduct

25

discovery if the court finds good cause exists to permit such. Accordingly, the court will deny

26

petitioner’s motion to compel discovery without prejudice at this time to its sua sponte renewal by

27

the court.

28

/////

1

Petitioner has also filed a motion for an extension of time to file a traverse. Before the

2

court had an opportunity to rule on petitioner’s motion, he filed his traverse as well as a motion

3

for leave to file an “oversized brief” in support of his traverse. Under these circumstances, the

4

court will grant petitioner’s motion for an extension of time and deem petitioner’s traverse timely

5

filed. In addition, the court notes that it does not normally place a page limit on a habeas

6

petitioner’s traverse. Therefore, the court will deny petitioner’s motion to file an “oversized

7

brief” in support of his traverse as unnecessary.

8

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

9

1. Petitioner’s motion to compel discovery (Doc. No. 37) is denied without prejudice to

10
11
12
13
14
15
16

its sua sponte renewal by the court;
2. Petitioner’s motion for an extension of time to file a traverse (Doc. No. 58) is granted.
Petitioner’s traverse (Doc. No. 61) is deemed timely filed;
3. Petitioner’s motion for leave to file an “oversized brief” in support of his traverse
(Doc. No. 60) is denied as unnecessary; and
4. This matter is now submitted for decision.
Dated: May 19, 2014

17
18
19

DAD:9:mp
mart2273.mots

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2