Naranjo v. United States

5 Citing cases

  1. James v. Macintosh

    22-cv-1120(KAM) (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 25, 2024)

    A petitioner bears a heavy burden in establishing a right to discovery.” Naranjo v. United States, No. 16-CV-7386 (JSR) (SLC), 2019 WL 4879297, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 3, 2019) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “Rule 6 does not license a petitioner to engage in a ‘fishing expedition' by seeking documents ‘merely to determine whether the requested items contain any grounds that might support his petition, and not because the documents actually advance his claims of error.'” Edwards v. Superintendent, Southport C.F., 991 F.Supp.2d 348, 364 (E.D.N.Y. 2013) (quoting Charles v. Artuz, 21 F.Supp.2d 168, 169 (E.D.N.Y. 1998)).

  2. Azeez v. Lilly

    22 Civ. 6028 (KMK)(JCM) (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 5, 2024)

    Naranjo v. United States, 16 Civ. 7386 (JSR)(SLC), 2019 WL 4879297, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 3, 2019) (citation omitted). “The Second Circuit has noted that ‘Rule 6(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings . . . provides that a [Section] 2255 petitioner is entitled to undertake discovery only when the judge in the exercise of his discretion and for good cause shown grants leave to do so, but not otherwise.'”

  3. Gantt v. Miller

    19 Civ. 2910 (VB)(JCM) (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 22, 2023)

    The Clerk of Court is respectfully requested to terminate the pending motion in establishing a right to discovery.” Naranjo v. United States, 16 Civ. 7386 (JSR)(SLC), 2019 WL 4879297, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 3, 2019) (quotations omitted). (Docket No. 27),

  4. Triplett v. Reardon

    Civil Action 20 Civ. 1064 (RA) (SLC) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2023)   Cited 1 times

    The Court's summary of the standard by which to analyze Triplett's Discovery Motions is set forth in Triplett V, and is incorporated by reference. See 2022 WL 16857351, at *1 (discussing the “good cause” standard); accord Naranjo v. U.S., No. 16 Civ. 7386 (JSR) (SLC), 2019 WL 4879297, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 3, 2019). Only if a petitioner has made the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2) is a district court permitted to hold an evidentiary hearing,and even then, “the granting of a[n evidentiary] hearing is within the discretion of the federal district court.” Mercer v. Herbert, 133 F.Supp.2d 219, 232 (W.D.N.Y. 2001); accord Pagan v. Keane, 984 F.2d 61, 63 (2d Cir. 1993); see Shinn v. Ramirez, 142 S.Ct. 1718, 1728 (2022) (explaining that, “[i]n all but [] extraordinary cases,” AEDPA “bars evidentiary hearings in federal habeas proceedings initiated by state prisoners[]”). The New York State court's determinations are presumed to be correct, and the petitioner bears the burden “to establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that the factual determination is erroneous.

  5. Rodriguez v. United States

    14-CV-6134(KAM) (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 31, 2020)   Cited 5 times

    In order to show "good cause," a petitioner must present "specific allegations" that give the court "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 (quoting Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286, 300 (1969)); see also Naranjo v. United States, 2019 WL 4879297, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 3, 2019).