From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Washington v. Burt

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Nov 7, 2014
Case No. 14-CV-11330 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 7, 2014)

Opinion

Case No. 14-CV-11330

11-07-2014

VINCENT WASHINGTON, Petitioner, v. SHERRY BURT, Respondent.


OPINION AND ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR LIMITED DISCOVERY

On March 31, 2014, Petitioner Vincent Washington, a state inmate, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, alleging that he is incarcerated in violation of his constitutional rights. Pending before the Court is Petitioner's motion for limited discovery. The Court will deny the motion without prejudice.

Petitioner's motion seeks to discover new evidence in support of his claim that the jury was tainted by extraneous influences. Habeas Rule 6(a) permits district courts to authorize discovery in habeas corpus proceedings "for good cause." Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, R. 6(a). As the Sixth Circuit has noted, "[h]abeas petitioners have no right to automatic discovery." Stanford v. Parker, 266 F.3d 442, 460 (6th Cir. 2001). "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, 117 S. Ct. 1793, 1799 (1997)).

The problem for Petitioner is that in Cullen v. Pinholster, 131 S. Ct. 1388, (2011), the Supreme Court held that where habeas claims had been decided on their merits in state court, a federal court's review under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) - whether the state court determination was contrary to or an unreasonable application of established federal law - must be confined to the record that was before the state court. 131 S. Ct. at 1398. The Cullen Court specifically found that the district court should not have held an evidentiary hearing regarding the petitioner's claims until after the court determined that the petition survived review under § 2254(d)(1). Id. at 1398. Therefore, the Court will deny without prejudice Petitioner's motion for limited discovery. The Court will reconsider the request if it determines that some or all of Petitioner's claims survive review under § 2254(d)(1)

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner's motion for limited discovery is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Dated: November 7, 2014

s/PATRICK J. DUGGAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies to: Vincent Washington
Jennifer K. Clark, Esq.
Laura Moody, Esq.


Summaries of

Washington v. Burt

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Nov 7, 2014
Case No. 14-CV-11330 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 7, 2014)
Case details for

Washington v. Burt

Case Details

Full title:VINCENT WASHINGTON, Petitioner, v. SHERRY BURT, Respondent.

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

Date published: Nov 7, 2014

Citations

Case No. 14-CV-11330 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 7, 2014)