As discussed below, Ward fails to overcome the limitations in § 2254(d) and therefore cannot show that his requested funds for the development of new evidence would be reasonably necessary. E.g., Caudill v. Conover, 871 F. Supp. 2d 639, 650 (E.D. Ky 2012); Soto Fong v. Ryan, No. CV 04-68-TUC-DCB, 2011 WL 3439237, at *15 (D. Ariz. Aug. 5, 2011) (denying requests for discovery, expansion of the record, and evidentiary hearing because petitioner failed to satisfy either prong of § 2254(d)). B. Factual Background

Other federal judges have required satisfaction of section 2254(d) as a prerequisite to discovery. See Lewis v. Ayers, No. CIV S 02-0013 KJM GGH, 2011 WL 2260784 (E.D. Cal. June 7, 2011);Coddington v. Cullen, No. CIV S 01-1290 KJM GGH, 2011 WL 2118855 (E.D. Cal. May 27, 2011); Fong v. Ryan, 2011 WL 3439237 (D. Ariz. Aug. 5, 2011); Hurst v. Branker, 2011 WL 2149470 (M.D. N.C. June 1, 2011). In Coddington and Lewis, Magistrate Judge Hollows questioned whether a federal court could "ever find good cause for federal habeas discovery . . . if it could not be put to use in federal court at an evidentiary hearing or otherwise."