Jones v. Madden
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Daniel E. Butcher (author)
Analysis
Petitioner Ryan Jones filed a motion in a federal habeas corpus proceeding seeking discovery, an evidentiary hearing, and the appointment of counsel. The Court denied the motion, finding that the requests were premature because the Petition had not yet been served and the Respondents had not yet answered.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion for Discovery Denied“Petitioner, however, has not yet served his Petition. Discovery, therefore, is premature.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that discovery in a habeas proceeding is not automatic and requires a showing of good cause. Furthermore, it is procedurally premature to grant discovery before the petition is even served and the respondent has had an opportunity to answer. The decision follows standard procedural rules for federal habeas cases. |
Request for Evidentiary Hearing Denied“Petitioner’s request for an evidentiary hearing is, therefore, premature.” | agree with court Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and the accompanying Rules, the determination of whether an evidentiary hearing is warranted occurs after the respondent files an answer. Since the petition had not been served, the respondent had not answered, making the request premature. The court's reliance on Rule 8(a) is correct. |
Request for Appointment of Counsel Denied“Because this Court has not granted discovery or an evidentiary hearing, the Court denies Plaintiff's request to appoint counsel.” | agree with court The court applied the rule that appointment of counsel is not required in the absence of an order granting discovery or an evidentiary hearing. Since the court denied the underlying requests for discovery and a hearing, the denial of counsel follows logically from the court's own rulings and the cited rules. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly applies the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases to determine that the petitioner's requests are premature because the case is at a very early stage (petition not served, no answer filed). The court cites the correct statutory rules and a relevant Supreme Court case regarding the standard for discovery. The logic for denying counsel is consistent with the denial of the underlying discovery and hearing requests.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RYAN JONES, Case No.: 18-cv-02173-LAB (DEB)
12 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING DISCOVERY, AN 13 v. EVIDENTIARY HEARING, AND APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 14 RAYMOND MADDEN, et al. , 15 Respondents. [DKT. NO. 29] 16 17 Before the Court is Petitioner Ryan Jones’ “Motion for Discovery.” Dkt. No. 29. 18 Petitioner seeks discovery, an evidentiary hearing, and appointment of counsel. Id. For the 19 reasons set forth below, Petitioner’s motion is DENIED. 20 I. Discovery 21 First, Petitioner requests permission to conduct discovery of a “confidential 22 unredacted Master Chronological Index,” jury identifications, subpoenas to command 23 testimony from “Juror #10,” Superior Court Judge Frazier, and his public defender. 24 Dkt. No. 29 at 4–17. Petitioner, however, has not yet served his Petition. Discovery, 25 therefore, is premature. Petitioner is advised, however, that parties in a habeas proceeding 26 are “not entitled to discovery as a matter of course;” and discovery is permitted only upon 27 a showing of good cause. Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899, 904 (1997); Rule 6(a), 28 U.S.C. 28 foll. § 2254. 1 II. Evidentiary Hearing 2 Second, Petitioner requests an evidentiary hearing. A court determines whether an 3 || evidentiary hearing is warranted in a habeas proceeding after the respondent files an answer 4 the petition. Rule 8(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254 (“If the petition is not dismissed, the judge 5 review the answer, any transcripts and records of state-court proceedings, and any 6 ||materials submitted under Rule 7 to determine whether an evidentiary hearing is 7 || warranted.”). Petitioner’s request for an evidentiary hearing is, therefore, premature. See, 8 |le.g., Lopez v. Williams, Case No. 18-cv-00480-JCM-NJK, 2019 WL 2476733, at *4 (D. 9 || Nev. June 13, 2019) (“As the respondents have not yet answered the petition on the merits, 10 || petitioner’s request for an evidentiary hearing is premature.’’). 11 III. Appointment of Counsel 12 Third, Petitioner asserts that the appointment of counsel is “necessary for effective 13 || discovery and subpoena to expand the record, protect the juror’s privacy, and is required 14 || by law.” Dkt. No. 29 at 21. Appointment of counsel is not required in a habeas corpus 15 || proceeding in the absence of an order granting discovery or an evidentiary hearing. See 16 || Rules 6(a), 8(c), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. Because this Court has not granted discovery or an 17 evidentiary hearing, the Court denies Plaintiff's request to appoint counsel. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 Dated: September 28, 2020 — x Dando oa 71 Honorable Daniel E. Butcher United States Magistrate Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28