Mendoza v. Montgomery

Full title: JUAN MENDOZA, Petitioner, v. WARDEN MONTGOMERY, Respondent.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION

Date published: Mar 25, 2019

No. CV 17-00739-ODW (JDE) (C.D. Cal. Mar. 25, 2019)

Opinion

No. CV 17-00739-ODW (JDE)

03-25-2019

JUAN MENDOZA, Petitioner, v. WARDEN MONTGOMERY, Respondent.

OTIS D. WRIGHT, II United States District Judge

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the records on file, including the operative First Amended Petition (Dkt. 24), Respondent's Answer (Dkt. 32), Petitioner's Reply/Traverse (Dkt. 41), the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (Dkt. 45), and Objections thereto filed by Petitioner (Dkt. 50), as well as Petitioner's "Request for Order to Show Cause" seeking an order compelling Respondent to answer eight questions and provide discovery (Dkt. 51), and Request for a Certificate of Appealability (Dkt. 52).

The Court has engaged in a de novo review of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections have been made. The Court accepts the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.

Further, with respect to the "Request for Order to Show Cause," Petitioner has not shown good cause for the relief he seeks nor for why he waited until after the issuance of the Report and Recommendation, more than a year after filing his original petition, to seek such relief. The Court notes "there simply is no federal right, constitutional or otherwise, to discovery in habeas proceedings as a general matter." Campbell v. Blodgett, 982 F.2d 1356, 1358 (9th Cir. 1993) (citing Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286, 296 (1969)). "Rather, discovery is available only in the discretion of the court and for good cause shown." Rich v. Calderon, 187 F.3d 1064, 1068 (9th Cir. 1999); see also Rule 6(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts (requiring a showing of good cause for a request for discovery); Campbell, 982 F.2d at 1358 ("The availability of any discovery during a habeas proceeding is committed to the sound discretion of the district court."). Petitioner has not shown good cause. The request (Dkt. 51) is denied.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner's request for an evidentiary hearing is denied;

2. Petitioner's "Order to Show Cause" (Dkt. 51), is denied; and

3. Judgment shall be entered denying the Petition and dismissing this action with prejudice.

Dated: March 25, 2019

/s/_________

OTIS D. WRIGHT, II

United States District Judge