Hale v. Villalpando
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- James E. Simmons (author)
Analysis
The court considered Petitioner's motions for discovery and for an extension of time to respond to a motion to dismiss in a habeas case. The court denied the motion for discovery and granted the motion for an extension of time, setting a deadline of August 21, 2023.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion for discovery denied“For that reason, the motion for discovery is DENIED.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard that discovery in habeas proceedings is discretionary and requires good cause. The court found that the specific documents requested had already been provided, rendering that portion moot, and that the interrogatories were overly broad and speculative without sufficient justification. |
Motion for extension of time to file response granted“Considering that Petitioner has just recently received NCBM 803, the Court finds good cause to GRANT the motion for an extension of time file a response for 30 days from the prior deadline.” | agree with court The court found good cause for the extension based on the recent receipt of a relevant document (NCBM 803) that was part of the discovery dispute. This is a reasonable exercise of discretion to ensure the petitioner has a fair opportunity to respond to the motion to dismiss. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the high bar for discovery in habeas cases and applies it to the specific facts, noting that the requested documents were already in the record and the interrogatories were speculative. The extension of time is a standard procedural accommodation based on the timing of document production.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DYLAN SCOTT HALE, Case No.: 3:21-cv-1884-JES-JLB 3:22-cv-0467-JES-JLB 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER:
14 ANNE E. VILLALPANDO, (1) DENYING MOTION FOR 15 Respondent. DISCOVERY;
16 (2) PARTIALLY GRANTING 17 MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE RESPONSE 18 19 ECF Nos. 41, 43, 21, 23 20 Presently before the Court are Petitioner Dylan Hale’s (“Petitioner” or “Hale”) 21 motions for discovery and extension of time to respond to Respondent’s motion to 22 dismiss. ECF Nos. 41, 43, 21, 23. For the reasons listed below, the Court DENIES 23 Petitioner’s motion for discovery and GRANTS his motion for extension of time to file a 24 response to Respondent’s motion to dismiss. 25 I. BACKGROUND 26 Petitioner previously filed a motion for discovery on March 8, 2022, that was 27 denied. ECF No. 27. Petitioner’s new motion seeks additional documents not previously 28 1 requested, namely, (1) Naval Consolidated Brig Miramar Standard Operating Procedure 2 803 (“NCBM 803”) regarding prisoner correspondence and legal mail procedures, and 3 (2) Department of Navy Corrections Manual (“SECNAV M-1640.1”) sections on 4 prisoner correspondence and legal mail. ECF No. 41. Petitioner also submitted seven 5 interrogatories. ECF No. 41-1. The Court addresses Petitioner’s request below. 6 II. MOTION FOR DISCOVERY 7 “There is no general right to discovery in habeas proceedings.” Rich v. Calderon, 8 187 F.3d 1064, 1068 (9th Cir. 1999). “A habeas petitioner does not enjoy the presumptive 9 entitlement to discovery of a traditional civil litigant.” Id. “Rather, discovery is available 10 only in the discretion of the court and for good cause shown.” Id.; see also Rules 11 Governing Section 2254 Cases, Rule 6(a) (“A judge may, for good cause, authorize a 12 party to conduct discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and may limit the 13 extent of discovery.”) 14 Petitioner’s discovery motion seeks two documents and requests multiple 15 interrogatories. Petitioner vaguely asserts that he needs these documents because “one of 16 the key issues in both cases is the use of the NCBM’s mail system; namely legal mail.” 17 ECF No. 41 at 1. Petitioner does not articulate any argument to support his position. 18 In opposition to Petitioner’s motion, Respondent has noted that the SECNAV M- 19 1640.1 section on the unauthorized use of mail was previously provided to Petitioner on 20 May 5, 2023, in the Notice of Lodgment (“NOL”) Ex. 47, ECF No. 37-2. Petitioner has 21 had that document for several months now. Respondent also provided a copy of the 22 NCBM 803 as part of its response to Petitioner’s motion. ECF Nos. 42-2, 42-3. Further, 23 Respondent provided a copy of the Naval Consolidated Brig Miramar No Contact Order 24 at issue in DR 89-21, which advised Hale that he was to “[r]efrain from all 25 communication with Prisoner Lattin,” and that “this include[d] attempting third party 26 communications and non-verbal communication.” Hale I NOL Ex. 26, ECF No. 37-1. 27 Respondent further submitted relevant excerpts from NCBM’s facility specific Rules and 28 Regulations. Hale II NOL Ex. 12, ECF No. 18-2. l It appears that Petitioner currently has a copy of each of the documents he has 2 requested. Therefore, his motion is moot as to the two documents he requested. 3 || Petitioner’s requests for interrogatories goes further than is allowed. See Calderon v. U.S. 4 || District Court for the N. District of California, 98 F.3d 1102, 1106 (9" Cir. 1996) 5 || (“[C]ourts should not allow prisoners to use federal discovery for fishing expeditions to 6 || investigate mere speculation.”’). Petitioner has failed to show the necessary good cause to 7 |\justify an order requiring the requested interrogatories other than vague assertions. For 8 || that reason, the motion for discovery is DENIED. 9 I. MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE RESPONSE 10 Considering that Petitioner has just recently received NCBM 803, the Court finds 11 || good cause to GRANT the motion for an extension of time file a response for 30 days 12 || from the prior deadline. Absent good cause, there will be no further extensions. 13 IV. CONCLUSION 14 For the reasons discussed above, the Court: 15 (1) DENIES Petitioner’s motion for discovery; and 16 (2)GRANTS Petitioner’s motion for an extension of time to file a response. 17 (3) Petitioner is ordered to file his response no later than August 21, 2023. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 . 30 Dated: July 28, 2023 4 wm Sin 4, 27 Unites States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28