From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Yang v. Sisto

United States District Court, E.D. California
Dec 21, 2010
No. CIV S-08-2233 FCD KJM P (E.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2010)

Opinion

No. CIV S-08-2233 FCD KJM P.

December 21, 2010


ORDER


Petitioner is a California prisoner proceeding pro se with an application for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Several matters are before the court.

1. Motion for Evidentiary Hearing

2. Motion for Subpoena

Schriro v. Landrigan550 U.S. 465474

3. Motion for Appointment of Expert

Petitioner asks that the court appoint an expert to conduct the gunshot residue testing addressed above. Because the court is not granting the request for testing, this request also will be denied.

4. Requests to Conduct Discovery

On September 7, 2010, petitioner filed discovery requests directed to respondent. Under Rule 6 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the court may authorize a party to conduct discovery for good cause. Petitioner does not even attempt to establish good cause for the discovery, virtually all of which relates to the jacket referenced above. Petitioner certainly does not show that anything he seeks in discovery is something not already before the court, or, if it is not, is something the court could consider in resolving petitioner's claims given the nature of habeas review.

The court notes that in his request for production, petitioner seeks permission to inspect the packet of jury instructions that jurors were given to take into the jury room. With respect to this request also, petitioner has not shown the requisite good cause. The jury instructions given the jury should be part of the record before the court in the Clerk's Transcript, and will be considered by the court to the extent appropriate.

Petitioner's request to engage in discovery will be denied.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner's motion for an evidentiary hearing (docket #62) is denied.

2. Petitioner's motion for issuance of a subpoena (docket #63) is denied.

3. Petitioner's motion for appointment of an expert witness (docket #64) is denied; and

4. Petitioner's requests to conduct discovery (docket #71, #72 and #73) are denied.

DATED: December 19, 2010.


Summaries of

Yang v. Sisto

United States District Court, E.D. California
Dec 21, 2010
No. CIV S-08-2233 FCD KJM P (E.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2010)
Case details for

Yang v. Sisto

Case Details

Full title:TENG YANG, Petitioner, v. D.K. SISTO, Respondent

Court:United States District Court, E.D. California

Date published: Dec 21, 2010

Citations

No. CIV S-08-2233 FCD KJM P (E.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2010)