Van Winkle v. Shinn

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Pete Van Winkle, No. CV-18-03290-PHX-ROS

Petitioner, ORDER v. David Shinn,

Respondent.

Petitioner’s current counsel seek permission to issue subpoenas and to receive copies of documents filed under seal. Good cause exists for issuance of the subpoena to Ginger Sirlin. However, if current counsel wish to obtain the other subpoenas, they must file a motion on the public docket justifying the need for those subpoenas. Respondent will then have an opportunity to oppose the subpoenas, if appropriate. The additional subpoenas will be authorized only after Petitioner satisfies the standard for discovery in habeas matters. That standard allows for discovery “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.” Pham v. Terhune, 400 F.3d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 2005). Thus, the requested subpoenas must seek facts that may demonstrate Petitioner is entitled to relief on his pending claims.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED the Motion to Seal (Doc. 85) is GRANTED. This Order shall not be sealed.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Clerk of Court shall send Petitioner’s current counsel copies of Doc. 83 and 84. Petitioner’s current counsel shall file a sealed response || to Doc. 84 no later than November 12, 2021. Petitioner’s current counsel shall provide a copy of their response to Petitioner’s former counsel.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Petitioner’s current counsel may issue their proposed subpoena to Ginger Sirlin. The following subpoenas may not be issued at this

7\| ttrme: Arizona Department of Corrections, Pinal County Public Records Request, Pima

County Office of Court Appointed Counsel, Stephanie Wallenta, and Office of General || Counsel Maricopa Community College.

Dated this 26th day of October, 2021. fo - Claud □□

Honorable Roslyn ©. Silver Senior United States District Judge

_2-