Jones

Jones v. Madden

Good Law
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaSeptember 28, 20203:18-cv-02173California453 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 RYAN JONES, Case No.: 18-cv-02173-LAB (DEB)

Petitioner,

ORDER DENYING DISCOVERY, AN

v. EVIDENTIARY HEARING, AND

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

RAYMOND MADDEN, et al. ,

Respondents. [DKT. NO. 29] 16 Before the Court is Petitioner Ryan Jones’ “Motion for Discovery.” Dkt. No. 29. Petitioner seeks discovery, an evidentiary hearing, and appointment of counsel. Id. For the reasons set forth below, Petitioner’s motion is DENIED. I. Discovery First, Petitioner requests permission to conduct discovery of a “confidential unredacted Master Chronological Index,” jury identifications, subpoenas to command testimony from “Juror #10,” Superior Court Judge Frazier, and his public defender. Dkt. No. 29 at 4–17. Petitioner, however, has not yet served his Petition. Discovery, therefore, is premature. Petitioner is advised, however, that parties in a habeas proceeding are “not…

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.