Opinion

1

2

3

4

5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7

8

9 MARIO INFANTE, NO. SACV 25-01890-MCS (AGR)

10 Petitioner, ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION

11 v.

12

CHANCE ANDES,

13

Respondent.

14

15

16 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition for Writ of

17 Habeas Corpus, the other records on file, the Report and Recommendation of the

18 United States Magistrate Judge (“Report”), the Objections, and the Supplemental

19 Objections. Petitioner’s request for leave to file supplemental objections is

20 GRANTED. (Dkt. No. 19.) The Court has engaged in a de novo review of those

portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections have been

21

made. The Court accepts the findings and recommendation of the Report.

22

Petitioner’s wide-ranging request for discovery, which is contained in his

23

supplemental objections, is DENIED. “A habeas petitioner, unlike the usual civil

24

litigant in federal court, is not entitled to discovery as a matter of ordinary course.”

25

Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899, 904 (1997). A court “may, for good cause,

26

authorize a party to conduct discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

27

and may limit the extent of discovery.” Rule 6(a), Rules Governing Section 2254

28

1 Cases in the United States District Courts. “A party requesting discovery must

2 provide reasons for the request.” Rule 6(b). To show good cause, Petitioner

3 must demonstrate that “specific allegations before the court show reason to

4 believe that the petitioner may, if the facts are fully developed, be able to

5 demonstrate that he is . . . entitled to relief.” Bracy, 520 U.S. at 909. Speculation

is insufficient. Id.; Earp v. Davis, 881 F.3d 1135, 1142-43 (9th Cir. 2018) (“’Just

6

as bald assertions and conclusory allegations do not afford a sufficient ground for

7

an evidentiary hearing, neither do they provide a basis for imposing upon the

8

state the burden of responding in discovery to every habeas petitioner who

9

wishes to seek such discovery.’”)

10

As the Report explains, Petitioner was released on parole in 2019 after a

11

first degree murder conviction and remanded to CDCR custody in May 2020 for

12

violating his parole conditions. (Report at 5.) An inmate sentenced to life in

13

prison for first- or second-degree murder is released on parole, if at all, for life and

14

is subject to remand to CDCR custody for a parole violation. Cal. Penal Code §§

15

3000.1(a), 3000.08(h).

16 Petitioner complains that an inmate released on parole on or after July 1,

17 2020 is subject to a three-year term of parole and is no longer subject to remand

18 to CDCR custody for parole violations. Cal. Penal Code § 3000.01. The statute

19 expressly “applies to persons released from state prison on or after July 1, 2020,

20 and who are subject to the jurisdiction of, and parole supervision by, the

21 Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation pursuant to Section 3000.08.” Cal.

22 Penal Code § 3000.01(a).

23 Section 3000.01(a) does not apply to Petitioner because he was released

on parole and remanded to CDCR custody for violating the terms of his parole

24

before July 1, 2020. As the Report notes, Respondent concedes that Petitioner

25

will be entitled to the benefit of § 3000.01(a) if he is released on parole in the

26

future. (Report at 7.)

27

28

1 Petitioner acknowledges that the decision in People v. Batten, 109 Cal.

2 App. 5th 908 (2025), review denied, 2025 Cal. LEXIS 3405 (June 11, 2025),

3 declined to apply heightened scrutiny, applied rational basis review and rejected

4 an equal protection challenge to the statute. The defendant in Batten had been

5 released on parole in 2017 and, unlike Petitioner, was on parole as of July 1,

2020. Batten subsequently admitted parole violations at a revocation hearing in

6

2023 based on an incident in 2021. Id. at 911. Rejecting Batten’s equal

7

protection challenge, the California Court of Appeal held:

8

“[W]hen the Board is determining whether to offer parole to an

9

inmate, it does so in part based on conditions of treatment or control on

10

parole. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, § 2402.) The Board could decide that

11

parole would not be appropriate for some inmates if they would only be

12

supervised for three years after release, while parole would be appropriate

13

if the term were longer. Likewise, the Board could also determine that

14

some inmates would only be suitable for parole if subject to the heavy

15

consequence of a mandatory remand to CDCR custody for a parole

16 violation. The Legislature could reasonably decide that upending these

17 Board considerations by changing the term of parole for such inmates or

18 releasing them from the mandatory consequences for a parole violation

19 would be unwise, and it could therefore rationally choose to make section

20 3000.01 operate prospectively only.

21 Id. at 914-15.

22 Petitioner requests discovery of (1) the Board parole release packet,

23 hearing minutes, and decision memorandum for Batten; (2) Board policy

documents, internal memoranda, or guidance addressing the role of length of

24

supervision in release decisions; (3) legislative history and committee reports for

25

SB 118; and (4) depositions or declarations from Board members or parole

26

agents who participated in release decisions. Petitioner requests an evidentiary

27

28

1 | hearing “to resolve factual disputes about reliance and legislative intent.” (Supp.

2 | Obj. at 15.)

3 Petitioner fails to show good cause for his broad request for discovery.

4 | Petitioner has not presented “specific allegations” that “show reason to believe

5 | that the petitioner may, if the facts are fully developed, be able to demonstrate

6 that he is. . . entitled to relief.” Bracy, 520 U.S. at 909. The Board considers

7 “any conditions of treatment or control” under which an inmate may be released

into the community under the provisions of 15 Cal. Code Regs. § 2402(b). Even

9 assuming the length of supervision and/or the prospect of mandatory remand to

10 CDCR custody for a parole violation would weigh differently for each individual

inmate, such discovery would not demonstrate a violation of equal protection.

i IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that Respondent’s motion to dismiss the

12 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is GRANTED and that judgment be entered

13 denying the Petition and dismissing this action.

14

DATED: March 11, 2026

16 MARK C. SCARSI

7 United States District Judge

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28