Hale

Hale v. Villalpando

Good Law
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaJuly 28, 20233:22-cv-00467California645 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

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 requested, namely, (1) Naval Consolidated Brig Miramar Standard Operating Procedure 803 (“NCBM 803”) regarding prisoner correspondence and legal mail procedures, and (2) Department of Navy Corrections Manual (“SECNAV M-1640.1”) sections on prisoner correspondence and legal mail. ECF No. 41. Petitioner also submitted seven interrogatories. ECF No. 41-1. The Court addresses Petitioner’s request below. II. MOTION FOR DISCOVERY “There is no general right to discovery in habeas proceedings.” Rich v. Calderon, 187 F.3d 1064, 1068 (9th Cir. 1999). “A habeas petitioner does not enjoy the presumptive entitlement to discovery of a traditional civil litigant.” Id. “Rather, discovery is available only in the discretion of the court and for good cause shown.” Id.; see also Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, Rule 6(a) (“A judge may, for good cause, authorize a party to conduct discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and may limit…

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.