Gilday v. Callahan

5 Citing cases

  1. TETI v. DENNEHY

    Civil Action No. 05-10234-RWZ (D. Mass. Aug. 1, 2006)   Cited 1 times
    Noting the Saferian standard to be at least as favorable to defendants as the Strickland standard and describing the standards as "essentially equivalent"

    Under Rule 6 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases ("Habeas Rule 6"), the liberal discovery standards that usually apply to civil cases in federal court are "severely curtailed." Gilday v. Callahan, 99 F.R.D. 308 (D. Mass. 1983). Habeas Rule 6 allows discovery in § 2254 proceedings only upon a showing of "good cause."

  2. Gilday v. Callahan

    866 F. Supp. 611 (D. Mass. 1994)   Cited 8 times

    Petitioner moved for an evidentiary hearing on the matter. That motion was denied by Magistrate Judge Joyce L. Alexander on September 16, 1983, Gilday v. Callahan, 99 F.R.D. 308 (no docket number). The denial was affirmed by Judge McNaught (marginal notation on Docket No. 53, made on January 18, 1983).

  3. Tillery v. Shartle

    No. CIV 16-204-TUC-CKJ (LAB) (D. Ariz. Sep. 29, 2017)   Cited 1 times

    Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, Advisory Notes. Good cause exists when there is "reason to believe that the petitioner may, if the facts are fully developed, be able to demonstrate that he is . . . entitled to relief[.]" Bracy, 520 U.S. at 908-09, citing Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 287, 300 (1969); Gilday v. Callahan, 99 F.R.D. 308 (D.C.Mass. 1983) (where a habeas petitioner sought to dispute facts previously resolved by state court, good cause is not shown). A habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is subject to both the 2254 Rules and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

  4. Sanchez v. Chappell

    Case No. 1:97-CV-06134-AWI-SAB (E.D. Cal. Jul. 22, 2015)   Cited 2 times

    In sum, nothing reasonably suggests a basis to believe the proposed testimony would lead to factual development showing entitlement to relief, and that the proposed testimony might otherwise be lost. See Bracy, 520 U.S. at 908-09; see also Gilday v. Callahan, 99 F.R.D. 308, 309 (D.C. Mass. 1983) (no "good cause" under Rule 6 where the facts petitioner seeks to dispute had been resolved by state court). For the reasons stated, Petitioner's motion to preserve evidence, as renewed, shall be denied.

  5. Johnston v. Love

    165 F.R.D. 444 (E.D. Pa. 1996)   Cited 1 times
    Rejecting the argument that discovery regarding undisclosed impeachment material would be "purposeless" because any withheld evidence would not be material, where the possible existence of an additional category of undisclosed impeachment material would make the issue of prejudice a "more difficult question"

    Furthermore, the facts sought by the discovery requests were disproved at the state court hearings held on May 26, May 27 and June 10, 1987. SeeUnited States v. Wilson, 901 F.2d 378, 381-382 (4th Cir.1990); Byrd v. Armontrout, 880 F.2d 1, 7 (8th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1019 [110 S.Ct. 1326, 108 L.Ed.2d 501] (1990); Hoffa v. United States, 471 F.2d 391, 394 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 880 [94 S.Ct. 159, 38 L.Ed.2d 125] (1973); Gilday v. Callahan, 99 F.R.D. 308, 309 (D.[C.] Mass.1983).          Judge Rueter's concise order appears to incorporate-or to at least imply-no less than three legal theories; I will consider them in sequence: