Opinion
No. CIV S-06-2072 DFL KJM P.
June 5, 2007
ORDER
Petitioner is a state prison inmate proceeding pro se with a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On April 4, 2007, he filed a motion for discovery and on April 18, 2007, he filed a motion for meaningful access to the courts.
I. Discovery Motion
Petitioner seeks a number of sheriff's department reports on his own arrest and on the arrest of Tyrone Watts and any reports on whether Watts worked as an informant.
A habeas petitioner is not entitled to discovery as a matter of course, but only when
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. . . .Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899, 909 (1997) (internal quotations and citations omitted); Rule 6(a), Rules Governing § 2254 Cases. Petitioner has presented nothing but a list of the information he seeks and has made no attempt to show how it would bolster his underlying habeas action.
II. Motion For Access To The Court
Petitioner alleges he has been placed in segregation on false charges and that his access to the library is very limited by virtue of this placement. Nevertheless, on May 14, he filed an opposition to respondent's motion to dismiss. There are currently no other pending deadlines in this case.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Petitioner's April 4, 2007 motion for discovery is denied; and
2. Petitioner's April 18, 2007 motion for meaningful access to the courts is denied.