(HC) Rivers v. Carr ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MELVIN WARREN RIVERS, Case No. 1:19-cv-00292-DAD-SAB-HC 12 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR DISCOVERY 13 v. (ECF No. 16) 14 MELISSA PARR, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 18 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. On October 15, 2019, the Court received the instant motion for 19 discovery, wherein Petitioner requests a copy of Detective Bales’s interview of the victim that 20 occurred on or around September 9, 2013. (ECF No. 16). 21 Although discovery is available pursuant to Rule 6 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 22 Cases,1 it is only granted at the Court’s discretion, and upon a showing of good cause. Bracy v. 23 Gramley, 520 U.S. 899, 904 (1997); McDaniel v. U.S. District Court (Jones), 127 F.3d 886, 888 24 (9th Cir. 1997); Jones v. Wood, 114 F.3d 1002, 1009 (9th Cir. 1997); Rule 6(a), Rules 25 Governing Section 2254 Cases. Good cause is shown “where specific allegations before the court 26 show reason to believe that the petitioner may, if the facts are fully developed, be able to 27 1 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 1 | demonstrate that he is . . . entitled to relief.” Bracy, 520 U.S. at 908-09 (citing Harris v. Nelson, 2 | 394 U.S. 287 (1969)). If good cause is shown, the extent and scope of discovery is within the 3 | court’s discretion. See Rule 6(a), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. “[A] district court 4 | abuse[s] its discretion in not ordering Rule 6(a) discovery when discovery [i]s ‘essential’ for the 5 | habeas petitioner to ‘develop fully’ his underlying claim.” Smith v. Mahoney, 611 F.3d 978, 997 6 | (9th Cir. 2010) (alterations in original) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Pham v. 7 | Terhune, 400 F.3d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 2005)). 8 However, on October 11, 2019, the undersigned issued findings and recommendation to 9 | dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction, finding that Petitioner did have an unobstructed 10 | procedural shot at presenting his actual innocence claim and thus did not satisfy the requirements 11 | to bring a § 2241 habeas petition under the savings clause of § 2255(e). (ECF No. 15). Therefore, 12 | Petitioner has not established good cause for discovery because even if the facts of his actual 13 | innocence claim are fully developed, Petitioner is not able to demonstrate that he is entitled to 14 | relief. 15 Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion for discovery (ECF No. 16) is DENIED. 16 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. OF. ee 1g | Dated: _ November 12, 2019 ; 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28