From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

King v. Rivard

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Feb 17, 2012
Case Number: 5:11-CV-13621 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 17, 2012)

Opinion

Case Number: 5:11-CV-13621

02-17-2012

DEANDRE L. KING, Petitioner, v. STEVE RIVARD, Respondent.


HON. JOHN CORBETT O'MEARA


ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

Petitioner Deandre L. King has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus, challenging his convictions for second-degree murder, assault with intent to murder, discharging a firearm in an occupied dwelling, receiving and concealing a stolen firearm, and felony firearm. Now before the Court is Petitioner's Motion to Compel Discovery.

Petitioner seeks discovery of several documents, including evidence technician reports, medical examiner reports, the prosecution's witness list, and his own custodial statements. "Habeas petitioners have no right to automatic discovery." Stanford v. Parker, 266 F.3d 442, 460 (6th Cir. 2001). Rule 6(a) permits district courts to authorize discovery in habeas corpus proceedings "if and to the extent that, the judge in the exercise of his discretion and for good cause shown grants leave to do so." Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, R. 6(a). "Rule 6 embodies the principle that a court must provide discovery in a habeas proceeding only 'where specific allegations before the court show reason to believe that the petitioner may, if the facts are fully developed, be able to demonstrate that he is . . . entitled to relief.'" Williams v. Bagley, 380 F.3d 932, 975 (6th Cir. 2004), quoting Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899, 908-09 (1997). "Rule 6 does not 'sanction fishing expeditions based on a petitioner's conclusory allegations.'" Id., quoting Rector v. Johnson, 120 F.3d 551, 562 (5th Cir. 1997). The Rule 5 materials have not yet been filed in this matter. The Court is not persuaded of the necessity of production of the requested documents at this time and the motion is denied. If, after receiving the Rule 5 materials, the Court determines that discovery is warranted, the Court will reconsider Petitioner's motion.

Accordingly, for the reasons stated, IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner's Motion to Compel Discovery [dkt. #3] is DENIED.

John Corbett O'Meara

United States District Judge

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties of record on this date, February 17, 2012, using the ECF system and/or ordinary mail.

William Barkholz

Case Manager


Summaries of

King v. Rivard

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Feb 17, 2012
Case Number: 5:11-CV-13621 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 17, 2012)
Case details for

King v. Rivard

Case Details

Full title:DEANDRE L. KING, Petitioner, v. STEVE RIVARD, Respondent.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

Date published: Feb 17, 2012

Citations

Case Number: 5:11-CV-13621 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 17, 2012)