From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Watkins v. Tuolumne Cnty. Superior Court

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jul 13, 2018
Case No. 1:18-cv-00876-EPG-HC (E.D. Cal. Jul. 13, 2018)

Opinion

Case No. 1:18-cv-00876-EPG-HC

07-13-2018

RAYMOND WATKINS, Petitioner, v. TUOLUMNE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, Respondent.


ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR DISCOVERY (ECF No. 6)

Petitioner Raymond Watkins is a state pretrial detainee proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. On June 9, 2018, Petitioner filed the instant motion for discovery, requesting his booking records from the Stanislaus County jail. (ECF No. 6).

Although discovery is available pursuant to Rule 6 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, it is only granted at the Court's discretion, and upon a showing of good cause. Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899, 904 (1997); McDaniel v. U.S. District Court (Jones), 127 F.3d 886, 888 (9th Cir. 1997); Jones v. Wood, 114 F.3d 1002, 1009 (9th Cir. 1997); Rule 6(a), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Good cause is shown "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 908-09 (citing Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 287 (1969)). If good cause is shown, the extent and scope of discovery is within the Court's discretion. See Rule 6(a), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.

The Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases apply to § 2241 habeas petitions. See Rule 1(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases ("The district court may apply any or all of these rules to a habeas corpus petition not covered by" 28 U.S.C. § 2254.).

In the instant case, it appears that abstention pursuant to Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), may be required. Further, the Court has not authorized Petitioner to conduct discovery. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion for discovery (ECF No. 6) is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED.

The Court is currently awaiting Petitioner's response to its order to show cause (ECF No. 4) why the petition should not be dismissed pursuant to Younger. --------

Dated: July 13 , 2018

/s/_________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

Watkins v. Tuolumne Cnty. Superior Court

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jul 13, 2018
Case No. 1:18-cv-00876-EPG-HC (E.D. Cal. Jul. 13, 2018)
Case details for

Watkins v. Tuolumne Cnty. Superior Court

Case Details

Full title:RAYMOND WATKINS, Petitioner, v. TUOLUMNE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, Respondent.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Jul 13, 2018

Citations

Case No. 1:18-cv-00876-EPG-HC (E.D. Cal. Jul. 13, 2018)