Brown v. Arnold

Full title: RICHARD BROWN, Petitioner, v. ERIC ARNOLD, Respondents.

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

Date published: Oct 13, 2015

2:14-cv-2922 MCE AC P (E.D. Cal. Oct. 13, 2015)

Opinion

RICHARD BROWN, Petitioner, v. ERIC ARNOLD, Respondents. No. 2:14-cv-2922 MCE AC P United States District Court, E.D. California. October 13, 2015

          ORDER

          ALLISON CLAIRE, Magistrate Judge.

         Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On May 13, 2015, petitioner filed a separate motion for leave to conduct discovery. ECF No. 17.

         Discovery may be conducted in a habeas case by leave of court upon a showing of good cause. Rule 6, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. Good cause exists where specific allegations before the court show reason to believe that petitioner may, if the facts are fully developed, be able to demonstrate that he is entitled to relief. Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899, 901-09 (1997).

         In his motion, petitioner seeks leave to request discovery related to the calculation of another inmate's parole and release date calculations. Id . The requested documents have no bearing on petitioner's claim that he is being subjected to a repealed standard resulting in an unlawful sentence. ECF No. 1. The request will therefore be denied.

         Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner's motion to conduct discovery (ECF No. 17) is denied.