Black v. Uribe

Full title: ROBERT BLACK, JR., Petitioner, v. DOMINGO URIBE, JR., Warden, Respondent.

Court: United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, C.D. California

Date published: Nov 8, 2010

CV 08-7922 CAS (JCG) (C.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2010)

Opinion

ROBERT BLACK, JR., Petitioner, v. DOMINGO URIBE, JR., Warden, Respondent. No. CV 08-7922 CAS (JCG). United States District Court, C.D. California. November 8, 2010.

          ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

          CHRISTINA A. SNYDER, District Judge.

         Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court has reviewed the Petition, the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, Petitioner's objections to the Report and Recommendation, and the remaining record, and has made a de novo determination.

         Petitioner's objections generally regurgitate the arguments made in the Petition and the Reply and lack merit for the reasons set forth in the Report and Recommendation.

         Petitioner also objects to the Magistrate Judge's denial of his motion for discovery by which he sought to discover and present evidence that he did not enter or take a laptop computer from the apartment where the police and victim claimed the burglary took place. ( See Objs. at 2, 23-24, Ex. A; Motion for Leave of Court to Invoke the Process of Discovery at 20.) A habeas petitioner, however, is not entitled to discovery as a matter of course. Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899, 904 (1997). "A judge may, for good cause, authorize a party to conduct discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and may limit the extent of discovery." Rule 6(a) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases. Good cause exists "where specific allegations before the court show reason to believe that the petitioner may, if the facts are fully developed, be able to demonstrate that he is... entitled to relief[.]'" Bracy, 520 U.S. at 908-09 ( quoting Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286, 300 (1969)).

         Here, at Petitioner's trial, the victim testified to her address and identified Petitioner as the man who entered her apartment and snatched her laptop. (RT at 270, 272.) Petitioner, himself, corroborated the victim's testimony. Petitioner admitted to entering her apartment and grabbing the laptop. ( Id. at 380.) Petitioner admitted that his fingerprints were on the laptop. ( Id. at 380, 418-19.) In light of the foregoing, Petitioner's motion for discovery was rightly denied.

         Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

         (1) the Report and Recommendation is approved and adopted; and,

         (2) judgment shall be entered denying the Petition and dismissing this action with prejudice.

         IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the Clerk serve copies of this Order and the Judgment on the parties.