Stevens v. Ayers

Filing 13

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION REGARDING DISCOVERY re 11 Request filed by Charles Stevens. Signed by Judge William Alsup on 5/3/11. (dt, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/3/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

11
12

Charles STEVENS,
Petitioner,

13

DEATH-PENALTY CASE
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S
MOTION REGARDING DISCOVERY

v.

14
15

Case Number 3-9-cv-137-WHA

Michael MARTEL, Acting Warden of San Quentin
State Prison,1

16

Respondent.

17
18

Petitioner is a condemned inmate at San Quentin State Prison who is awaiting the

19

appointment of federal habeas counsel. Petitioner, proceeding pro se, has filed a motion

20

captioned “Requesting Review of Due Process.” (Doc. No. 11.)

21

Petitioner, proceeding in propria persona, filed a motion for discovery in Alameda

22

Superior Court, which was denied without prejudice. (Doc. No. 11-1 at 1–2.) The California

23

Court of Appeal subsequently denied a petition for writ of mandate. (Id. at 3.) Petitioner then

24

sought review in the California Supreme Court. However, the clerk of that court did not file

25

Petitioner’s request, informing Petitioner that, “Because you are represented by counsel, you are

26

not entitled to submit the request yourself.” (Id. at 4.)

27
1

28

Michael Martel is automatically substituted for his predecessor as Respondent pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d).
Case No. 3-9-cv-137-WHA
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION REGARDING DISCOVERY
(DPSAGOK)

1

Petitioner now seeks an order from this Court granting the discovery he was denied in

2

state court or, alternatively, directing the California Supreme Court to file and consider his

3

request on the merits. However, this federal court lacks jurisdiction over the state courts, and a

4

federal court (unlike state courts) is not permitted to grant discovery in a habeas action until after

5

a petition has been filed. Calderon v. U.S. Dist. Ct. (Nicolaus), 98 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir. 1996).

6

The Court therefore has no choice but to deny Petitioner’s motion.

7

The Court notes that the Alameda Superior Court denied Petitioner’s motion without

8

prejudice. This means that that court will reconsider Petitioner’s motion for discovery if he

9

complies with the terms of the court’s order. It therefore appears that Petitioner still may be able

10
11
12

to obtain the discovery he seeks.
Good cause appearing therefor, Petitioner’s motion regarding discovery, captioned
“Requesting Review of Due Process,” is denied.

13

It is so ordered.

14
15

DATED:

May 3, 2011

__________________________________
WILLIAM H. ALSUP
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

Case No. 3-9-cv-137-WHA
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION REGARDING DISCOVERY
(DPSAGOK)