Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Bartlett v. Penzone, CV-19-02467-PHX-SRB (ESW). (2019)

Court: District Court, D. Arizona Number: infdco20190925941 Visitors: 12
Filed: Sep. 24, 2019
Latest Update: Sep. 24, 2019
Summary: ORDER EILEEN S. WILLETT , Magistrate Judge . The Court has reviewed Petitioner's "Renewed Motion to Compel Disclosure of Relevant Discovery" (Doc. 21) and "Motion to Produce Relevant Evidence in Support of Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus" (Doc. 22). As explained in the Court's August 8, 2019 Order (Doc. 20), a habeas petitioner "does not enjoy the presumptive entitlement to discovery of a traditional civil litigant." Rich v. Calderon, 187 F.3d 1064 , 1068 (9th Cir. 1999); Bracy v. Gr
More

ORDER

The Court has reviewed Petitioner's "Renewed Motion to Compel Disclosure of Relevant Discovery" (Doc. 21) and "Motion to Produce Relevant Evidence in Support of Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus" (Doc. 22). As explained in the Court's August 8, 2019 Order (Doc. 20), a habeas petitioner "does not enjoy the presumptive entitlement to discovery of a traditional civil litigant." Rich v. Calderon, 187 F.3d 1064, 1068 (9th Cir. 1999); Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899, 904 (1997) (stating that unlike other civil litigants, a habeas corpus petitioner is not entitled to broad discovery). The Court does not find good cause to allow Petitioner to conduct discovery. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED denying Petitioner's "Renewed Motion to Compel Disclosure of Relevant Discovery" (Doc. 21).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Petitioner's "Motion to Produce Relevant Evidence in Support of Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus" (Doc. 22).

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer