Opinion
Civil Action No. 09-cv-00326-CMA-CBS.
May 18, 2009
ORDER
This civil action comes before the court on: (1) Mr. Schwartz' "Motion for Extension of Time in Order to File Reply Brief" (filed May 13, 2009) (doc. # 14); and (2) Mr. Schwartz' request for "Discovery and Sanctions, in Part, Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules 26 and 37" (filed May 13, 2009) (doc. # 15). Pursuant to the Order of Reference dated April 23, 2009 (doc. # 12) and the memorandum dated May 14, 2009 (doc. # 16), these matters were referred to the Magistrate Judge. The court has reviewed Mr. Schwartz' Motions, the entire case file, and the applicable law and is fully advised in the premises.
Mr. Schwartz filed his Application for a Writ Of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 by a Person in State Custody ("Petition") on February 17, 2009. ( See doc. # 3). Respondent filed her "Response to Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus" ("Answer") on May 1, 2009 (doc. # 13). As a result of the District Judge Weinshienk's Oder on April 17, 2009, the only remaining claim before the court alleges that the results of Mr. Schwartz' parole "hearing" held on May 28, 2008, in which the Colorado State Board of Parole ("Parole Board") denied his request for discretionary parole prior to completion of his sentence, violated his rights to due process and equal protection. ( See "Order to Dismiss in Part and to Draw Case to a District Judge and to a Magistrate Judge" (doc. # 9)).
Generally, "[t]here is no constitutional or inherent right of a convicted person to be conditionally released before the expiration of a valid sentence." Greenholtz v. Inmates of the Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex, 442 U.S. 1, 7 (1979); see also Lustgarden v. Gunter, 966 F.2d 552, 555 (10th Cir. 1992) ("Parole is a privilege; there is no constitutional or inherent right to parole."). The Supreme Court of Colorado has interpreted Colorado's parole statute and determined that the Parole Board is given the "sole power to grant or refuse to grant parole." See Colo. Rev. Stat. § 17-2-201(5)(a); Martinez v. Furlong, 893 P.2d 130, 131 (Colo. 1995) ( en banc). The Parole Board need only demonstrate a rational basis for its decision. Lewis v. Beeler, 949 F.2d 325, 331-32 (10th Cir. 1991). "[T]he decision of the parole board may not be overturned unless it was arbitrary, capricious or an abuse of discretion." Schuemann v. Colorado State Board of Parole, 624 F.2d 172, 173 (10th Cir. 1980). Federal courts may not reweigh evidence, rule on credibility matters, or substitute their judgment for the judgment exercised by a parole board. Fiumara v. O'Brien, 889 F.2d 254, 257 (10th Cir. 1989).
Mr. Schwartz seeks extensive discovery in the form of "items, exhibits, and materials" from Respondent pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26 and sanctions pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 37 for failure to provide discovery. "The rules of pretrial discovery, . . . are not applicable to habeas corpus proceedings, unless they are necessary to help the court dispose of the matter as law and justice require." Hernandez v. Garrison, 916 F.2d 291, 293 (5th Cir. 1990) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Much of what Mr. Schwartz requests is not adequately related to the claims remaining in the Petition. For example, Mr. Schwartz' request for "any and all documents, memos, reports, orders, studies and their results, statistics and all other materials used by the Sex Offender Treatment Program" does not adequately pertain to the single remaining claim challenging the denial of parole on May 28, 2008. Further, Respondent need not provide Mr. Schwartz with the requested copies of his own submissions to the Parole Board. In light of the limitations on discovery in habeas actions, see Crownhart v. Reid, 2008 WL 4225853 (D. Colo. 2008) (denying discovery in § 2241 habeas action), and the limited legal issues presented by this action, the court determines that the requested discovery is not necessary or appropriate.
A copy of this unpublished decision is attached to this Order.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that
1. Mr. Schwartz' "Motion for Extension of Time in Order to File Reply Brief" (filed May 13, 2009) (doc. # 14) is GRANTED. Mr. Schwartz may file his reply to Respondent's "Response to Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus" (doc. # 13) on or before June 26, 2009.
2. Mr. Schwartz' request for "Discovery and Sanctions, in Part, Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules 26 and 37" (filed May 13, 2009) (doc. # 15) is DENIED.
Westlaw.
Slip Copy
Slip Copy, 2008 WL 4225853 (D.Colo.)
(Cite as: 2008 WL 4225853 (D.Colo.))
Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
United States District Court, D. Colorado. Earl CROWNHART, Applicant, v. Larry REID, Warden, Respondent. Civil Action No. 08-cv-00692-MSK-KLM. September 15, 2008Earl Crownhart, Pueblo, CO, pro se.
ORDER
KRISTEN L. MIX, United States Magistrate Judge.
*1 This matter is before the Court on several motions filed by Applicant [Docket Nos. 97, 98, 100, 108 and 112].
Citing to many different Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Applicant appears to request that he be allowed to serve interrogatories and request admissions on Defendant [# 97, # 98 # 108], that he be allowed to subpoena witnesses to testify at trial [# 98], that he be allowed to take depositions [# 108], and that he be allowed discovery in general in order to obtain documentary evidence [# 112].
Applicant remains confused about the proper procedures for prosecution of this habeas corpus action. Because no "trial" occurs in a habeas action, discovery is limited. "The procedures set out in the habeas corpus statutes take precedence over the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure during the pendency of habeas corpus proceedings." Burton v. Johnson, 975 F.2d 690, 694 (10th Cir. 1992) (citing Browder v. Dir., Dep't of Corr., 434 U.S. 257, 267-68 (1978)). The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure cited by Applicant are not normally applicable, although 28 U.S.C. § 2246 authorizes interrogatories and depositions in limited circumstances. That is, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2246, "[o]n application for a writ of habeas corpus, evidence may be taken orally or by deposition, or, in the discretion of the judge, by affidavit. If affidavits are admitted any party shall have the right to propound written interrogatories to the affiants, or to file answering affidavits. "A district court, when presented with a § 2241 petition that establishes a prima facie case for relief, "may use or authorize the use of suitable discovery procedures, including interrogatories, reasonably fashioned to elicit facts necessary to help the court to dispose of the matter." Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286(290) (1969) (internal quotations omitted); see also Hernandez v. Garrison, 916 F.2d 291, 293 (5th Cir. 1990) (rules of pretrial discovery are not applicable to the habeas corpus proceedings unless necessary to help the court dispose of the matter as law and justice require).
However, Applicant has not argued and the Court does not find that Applicant's § 2241 habeas petition establishes a prima facie case for relief, nor that discovery is necessary to help the Court dispose of the matter. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motions [Docket Nos. 97, 98,108 and 112] are DENIED.
Finally, Applicant appears to again attempt to amend his Second Amended Petition for Habeas Corpus to add a claim pursuant to Colorado State law and/or the Eighth Amendment [# 100]. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion [# 100] is DENIED, for the reasons set forth by the Court in its Minute Order dated July 30, 2008 [Docket No. 69] and Order dated August 12, 2008 [Docket No. 94].
D.Colo., 2008.
Crownhart v. Reid
Slip Copy, 2008 WL 4225853 (D.Colo.)