Opinion
Civil Action 22-1223
11-02-2022
TODD ROBINSON, Petitioner, v. ORLANDO HARPER; and DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY, Respondents.
ORDER ECF NO. 19
Maureen P. Kelly, Magistrate Judge
Petitioner Todd Robinson is a pre-trial detainee currently held at the Allegheny County Jail (“ACJ”) in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. He initiated the present matter on August 25, 2022, by submitting a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (the “Petition”) along with a Motion and Declaration in Support of Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (“IFP”). Leave to proceed IFP was granted on August 26, 2022, ECF No. 4, and the Petition was filed the same day, ECF No. 6. Respondents submitted an Answer on October 11, 2022. ECF No. 16. Petitioner submitted a Traverse on October 31, 2022. ECF No. 19.
Presently before this Court is an apparent motion included within the Traverse, in which Petitioner seeks the production of surveillance video related to his pending criminal charges. IT at 20. To the extent that this is properly construed as a motion, Petitioner has not shown good cause for the production of this discovery in this federal habeas proceeding, and the same will be denied.
Habeas petitioners have no absolute right to make discovery demands upon respondents. “A habeas petitioner, unlike the usual civil litigant in federal court, is not entitled to discovery as a matter of ordinary course.” Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899, 904 (1997). See also Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286, 300 (1969) (“broad-ranging preliminary inquiry is neither necessary nor appropriate in the context of a habeas corpus proceeding.”).
Under Rule 6(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, a district court has discretion to decide the extent to which discovery is appropriate. The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 6 makes clear that prior court approval is required to prevent abuse. SECT 2254 Rule 6. See also Mayberry v. Petsock, 821 F.2d 179, 185 (3d. Cir. 1987). The discovery rules for Section 2254 petitions apply with equal force to federal habeas petitions under Section 2241. Patton v. Fenton, 491 F.Supp. 156, 158-59 (M.D. Pa. 1979) (explaining that habeas rules are “applicable to Section 2241 petitions through Rule 1(b)”). See also Brennerman v. Thompson, No. 21-1610, 2021 WL 4844012, at *1 (M.D. Pa. Oct. 18, 2021)
Discovery is authorized in Rule 6(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts only by leave of court upon a showing by the petitioner of “good cause,” which may be made “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 relieff.]” Harris, 394 U.S. at 300. See also Bracy, 520 U.S. at 908-09.
Here, the Petitioner challenges alleged violations of his constitutional rights with respect to his lengthy pre-trial detention. See generally ECF No. 5. He has not demonstrated that the surveillance video would affect his detention. Additionally, the exhibits submitted in support of the Traverse indicate that, as of December 14, 2021, Petitioner's attorney had requested the video, and the prosecution had agreed to provide it. ECF No. 19-3 at 4 (“But the motion for discovery has to do with a videotape at McDonald's. I just talked to District Attorney Sasinoski. . . . and she has assured me that she will get it to me.”). Petitioner does not provide any indication that the prosecution has rescinded this agreement.
Accordingly, Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the discovery that he seeks will affect his ability to prevail in his attack of his lengthy pre-trial detention, and his request for the same in these habeas proceedings will be denied.
This Court expresses no opinion on the merits of any such discovery demand in Petitioner's underlying criminal case, and this order should not be read to affect those proceedings in any way.
AND NOW, this 2nd day of November, 2022, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that, to the extent that Petitioner seeks discovery through his Traverse, ECF No. 19, the same is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, on or before November 16, 2022, the parties may appeal this order to a District Judge pursuant to Rule 72.C.2 of the Local Rules for Magistrate Judges. Failure to appeal in a timely manner will constitute waiver of the right to appeal.