Thomas

Thomas v. Cate

Good Law
715 F. Supp. 2d 1012·2010 WL 671254·2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21750
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaFebruary 19, 20101:05-cv-1198California15,933 words

Opinion

Opinion

Dixon, J.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PETITIONER’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO SUBSTITUTE RESPONDENT

Procedural Background

Petitioner Brian Thomas (“Petitioner”) is a state prisoner proceeding with a peti tion for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 .

On March 19, 2009, the Court scheduled an evidentiary hearing in this matter in order to permit Petitioner to present evidence that article V, section 8(b) of the California Constitution created a significant risk of prolonging Petitioner’s incarceration and therefore violated Petitioner’s rights under the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution. (Doc. 27). On July 10, 2009, Petitioner filed a request for leave to propound discovery pursuant to Rule 6 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. (Doc. 36).

The Court granted Petitioner’s request for leave to propound discovery on July 21, 2009, 2009 WL 2171564 . (Doc. 38). On August 7, 2009, 2009 WL 2424683 , the District Judge denied Respondent’s motion for reconsideration of the order granting Petitioner leave to propound discovery. (Doc. 44).

Petitioner filed a motion to compel discovery on August 31,…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.