Summary
rejecting litigant's attempt to "embark on a 'fishing expedition' to 'explore [his] case in search of its existence.'"
Summary of this case from Willis v. MarchantOpinion
CRIMINAL NO. 2:08-0143 CIVIL NO. 2:12-0654
05-15-2012
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. TERRAL JAMES TAYLOR
JUDGE HAIK
MAGISTRATE JUDGE HILL
ORDER
The Clerk has received a copy of Requests for Production which petitioner, Terral James Taylor ("Taylor"), has propounded on the government in connection with his Motion to Vacate or Correct Sentence filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which petitioner requests be filed in the record of these proceedings.
A petitioner seeking habeas relief is not entitled to discovery as a matter of ordinary course. Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899, 904, 117 S.Ct. 1793, 138 L.Ed.2d 97 (1997). Pursuant to Rule 6 which accompanies 28 U.S.C. § 2255, it is within the district court's discretion to grant discovery in a habeas case upon a fact specific showing of good cause. Id. at 909 citing Rule 6(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2255.
Rule 6(a) of the Rules Governing §2255 Cases provides:
A party shall be entitled to invoke the processes of discovery available under the Federal Rules of criminal Procedure or the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or elsewhere in the usages and principles of law if, and to the extent that, the judge in the exercise of his discretion and for good cause shown grants leave to do so, but not otherwise.
A petitioner establishes "good cause" for discovery under Rule 6(a) "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." Bracy, 520 U.S. at 908-909. Conclusory allegations are not enough to warrant discovery; the petitioner must set forth specific allegations of fact. Ward v. Whitley, 21 F.3d 1355, 1367 (5th Cir. 1994). However, Rule 6 does not authorize fishing expeditions. Id. Succinctly stated, "Habeas corpus is not a general form of relief for those who seek to explore their case in search of its existence." Id. citing Aubet v. Maine, 431 F.2d 688, 689 (1st Cir. 1970).
In this case, Taylor has not sought permission of this Court to engage in discovery. Furthermore, Taylor provides no specific factual allegations as to why discovery is necessary for the proper disposition of his claims, nor can the undersigned find any reason for discovery based on the nature of the claims presented by Taylor to this Court. Petitioner essentially wishes to embark on a "fishing expedition" to "explore [his] case in search of it's existence." As such, discovery may not proceed, and the government need not respond to petitioner's discovery requests.
Rule 12 which accompanies 28 U.S.C. § 2255 permits the court to apply the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to the extent that they are not inconsistent with § 2255 or Rules accompanying the statute. Rule 5(d)(1), FRCP, provides that discovery requests, including requests for documents, "must not be filed until they are used in the proceeding or the court orders filing." In this case, the Court has not permitted discovery to proceed. Further, Rule 5(d)(1) is not inconsistent with § 2255 or the Rules accompanying that statute. Accordingly, the Clerk will be ordered to return the discovery requests submitted by Taylor to Taylor without filing same in the record.
For these reasons;
IT IS ORDERED that the government need not respond to petitioner's discovery requests.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall return the discovery requests submitted by Taylor to Taylor without filing same in the record.
______________________
C. MICHAEL HILL
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE