Lyons v. Baca et al

Filing 20

ORDER denying 16 motion for subpoena duces tecum; granting 18 motion for extension of time re 10 motion to dismiss (petitioner's response due within 20 days, respondents' reply due within 7 days thereafter); denying< /B> 19 motion to file supplemental points and authorities. No further extensions of time will be granted regarding briefing of 10 motion to dismiss. Signed by Judge Howard D. McKibben on 12/19/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6
7
8
9

WILLIAM R. LYONS,

10

Petitioner,

11

vs.

12

Case No. 3:14-cv-00173-HDM-WGC

ISIDRO BACA, et al.,

13

ORDER

Respondents.

14
15
This action is a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254
16
by a Nevada state prisoner. On June 25, 2014, respondents filed a motion to dismiss this action,
17
along with relevant portions of the state court record. (ECF Nos. 10, 11, 13). On July 7, 2014,
18
petitioner filed a motion for an extension of time in which to respond to the motion to dismiss.
19
(ECF No. 14). By order filed July 9, 2014, the Court granted petitioner a ninety-day extension of
20
time in which to file a response to the motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 15). Petitioner’s response was
21
due on October 7, 2014.
22
Petitioner then filed a motion for a subpoena duces tecum, seeking documents from the
23
justice court in his state criminal case. (ECF No. 16). Respondents filed an opposition to
24
petitioner’s motion, arguing that petitioner failed to show good cause for discovery. Respondents
25
also assert that they have already provided a lengthy state court record when they filed the motion to
26
dismiss. (ECF No. 17). In habeas corpus actions, discovery is regulated by Rule 6 of the Rules
27
Governing Section 2254 Cases. Rule 6 provides that discovery in habeas corpus actions may be
28

1

invoked only after obtaining leave of court and upon a showing of good cause. Rule 6(a) states: “A

2

judge may, for good cause, authorize a party to conduct discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil

3

Procedure and may limit the extent of discovery.” Rule 6(b) states: “A party requesting discovery

4

must provide reasons for the request. The request must also include any proposed interrogatories

5

and requests for admissions, and must specify any requested documents.” Rule 6, Rules Governing

6

Section 2254 Cases. “Habeas is an important safeguard whose goal is to correct real and obvious

7

wrongs. It was never meant to be a fishing expedition for habeas petitioners to ‘explore their case in

8

search of its existence.’” Rich v. Calderon, 187 F.3d 1064, 1067 (9th Cir. 1999) (citations omitted).

9

“A habeas petitioner does not enjoy the presumptive entitlement to discovery of a traditional civil

10

litigant. Rather, discovery is available only in the discretion of the court and for good cause

11

shown.” Rich v. Calderon, 187 F.3d at 1068 (citing Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899, 903-05 (1997)

12

and Rule 6(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases). Good cause to conduct discovery in a

13

habeas action is based on several factors: (1) the request must be grounded on specific and

14

demonstrable facts; (2) the request must establish a logical and direct nexus between the discovery

15

sought and the claims pending before the court; (3) there must be real and factual evidence that the

16

petitioner can point to in order to establish that the claims in the petition have a basis in fact and are

17

more than mere speculation; and (4) the discovery request must be narrowly tailored to obtain

18

specific and identifiable items. Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. at 905-909. In this case, petitioner has

19

not explained to this Court how the documents sought in the proposed subpoena duces tecum are

20

relevant to this federal habeas proceeding. Because petitioner has failed to show good cause for this

21

Court to permit discovery, petitioner’s motion for a subpoena duces tecum is denied.

22

Petitioner has filed a second motion seeking an extension of time in which to file a response

23

to the pending motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 18). Petitioner seeks an extension because he claims

24

that without the documents that he would have obtained from his subpoena duces tecum, he is

25

unable to properly address the motion to dismiss. (Id.). In this order, the Court denies petitioner’s

26

motion for a subpoena duces tecum. Petitioner should be able to properly address the motion to

27

dismiss by reference to relevant portions of the state court record, which respondents have filed and

28

served on petitioner. (ECF Nos. 11 & 13). The Court will grant petitioner twenty additional days in
-2-

1

which to file his response to the pending motion to dismiss. Respondents will then have seven days

2

in which to file a reply, if they choose to do so. No further extensions of time will be granted

3

regarding the briefing of the motion to dismiss.

4

Most recently, petitioner has filed a motion to file supplemental points and authorities in

5

support of his petition. (ECF No. 19). The motion is denied, as petitioner is afforded the

6

opportunity to file a response to the motion to dismiss, and if the petition survives the motion to

7

dismiss, he will be afforded a future opportunity to file a reply to the answer.

8
9
10

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for a subpoena duces tecum
(ECF No. 16) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for an extension of time to file a

11

response to the pending motion to dismiss (ECF No. 18) is GRANTED, to the extent that

12

petitioner’s response shall be filed within twenty (20) days from the date of entry of this order.

13

Respondents’ reply, if any, to petitioner’s response shall be filed within seven (7) days of the date

14

that petitioner’s response is filed. No further extensions of time will be granted regarding the

15

briefing of the pending motion to dismiss.

16
17
18

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner’s motion to file supplemental points and
authorities in support of his petition (ECF No. 19) is DENIED.
Dated this 19th day of December, 2014.

19
20
21

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-