Burnham v. Torrez

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
ROBERT BURNHAM,
Petitioner,
v. No. 25-cv-735-KG-JHR
RAUL TORREZ, Attorney General of New Mexico,
Respondent.
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE MISCELLANEOUS MOTIONS
This matter is before the Court on the following Motions filed by pro se Petitioner Robert
Burnham: (1) Motion to Preclude Respondent Counsel and Sequester Witnesses (Doc. 3); (2)
Motion for Evidentiary Hearing (Doc. 4); (3) Motion for Summary Disposition and Relief (Doc.
5); and (4) Motion for Targeted Discovery (Doc. 7). Petitioner initiated this case by filing a
Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in which he challenges his state
criminal conviction for Aggravated Assault (Deadly Weapon). (Doc. 1) (Habeas Petition). The
Habeas Petition is before the Court for initial screening under Habeas Corpus Rules 1 and 4.
Having reviewed Petitioner’s Motions, the record of the case, and relevant law, the Court denies
the Motions without prejudice for the reasons stated below.
In his Motion to Preclude Respondent Counsel and Sequester Witnesses, Petitioner asks
the Court to “preclude specific counsel from representing the State of New Mexico and to
sequester witnesses named in this proceeding.” (Doc. 3) at 1. Petitioner argues that attorneys
who are listed on Petitioner’s witness list and were involved in Petitioner’s underlying state
criminal case should be precluded from representing the State of New Mexico in this habeas
Case 2:25-cv-00735-KG-JHR Document 10 Filed 03/05/26 Page 1 of 3

2
action. Id. He further asks the Court to sequester a list of witnesses. Id. In his remaining
Motions, Petitioner seeks an evidentiary hearing, for the Court to summarily grant his Habeas
Petition, and for discovery relating to his claims. See Motion for Evidentiary Hearing (Doc. 4),
Motion for Summary Disposition and Relief (Doc. 5), and Motion for Targeted Discovery
(Doc. 7).
Whenever a prisoner brings a proceeding seeking habeas corpus relief, the Court is
obligated to screen the prisoner’s petition. Habeas Corpus Rule 4 provides: “If it plainly
appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in
the district court, the judge must dismiss the petition and direct the clerk to notify the petitioner.”
Section 1997(e) of Title 42 further provides that a defendant may decline to reply to any action
brought by an inmate until the Court orders a response. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(1)-(2).
The Court will screen this case pursuant to the Habeas Corpus Rule 4. If the Habeas
Petition survives screening, the Court will order Respondent to answer the Petition and to file
relevant documents from the state court proceedings. Petitioner will be permitted to file a
response to Respondent’s answer. Thereafter, the Court may authorize discovery if the
requesting party shows good cause and provides specific reasons supporting the request. See
Habeas Corpus Rule 6. For these reasons, Petitioner’s requests for sequestration of witnesses,
hearings, discovery, and summary disposition are premature and unavailable prior to the Court’s
completion of its screening obligation. Similarly, Petitioner’s request to preclude certain
attorneys from representing the State of New Mexico is premature and speculative. An attorney
has not yet entered an appearance on behalf of Respondent, and it is not clear at this stage of the
proceedings whether Petitioner’s claims will survive screening. To the extent Petitioner asserts
Case 2:25-cv-00735-KG-JHR Document 10 Filed 03/05/26 Page 2 of 3

3
he needs additional discovery to prepare his arguments in this case, the Court notes that the
Habeas Petition pending before the Court contains adequate information to facilitate the Court’s
screening process. If the Habeas Petition survives screening, the Court may consider whether
and to what extent it is necessary to expand the record under Habeas Rule 7, or to otherwise
direct Respondents to provide adequate access to materials needed for Petitioner to prosecute his
habeas claims.
The Court will therefore deny Petitioner’s pending Motions without prejudice. If the
Habeas Petition is not dismissed on initial screening, the Court will enter further orders
governing service of process, discovery, expansion of the record, and scheduling.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion to Preclude Respondent Counsel
and Sequester Witnesses (Doc. 3), Motion for Evidentiary Hearing (Doc. 4), Motion for Summary
Disposition and Relief (Doc. 5), and Motion for Targeted Discovery (Doc. 7), are DENIED
without prejudice.
/s/Kenneth J. Gonzales___________________
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
• Please note that this document has been
electronically filed. To verify its
authenticity, please refer to the Digital File
Stamp on the NEF (Notice of Electronic
Filing) accompanying this document.
Electronically filed documents can be found
on the Court’s PACER public access
system.
Case 2:25-cv-00735-KG-JHR Document 10 Filed 03/05/26 Page 3 of 3