(HC) Potts v. Gastelo ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KEVIN POTTS, Case No. 1:20-cv-01236-JLT-HBK (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR DISCOVERY 13 v. (Doc. No. 84) 14 DANNY SAMUEL, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner Kevin Potts, a state prisoner, is proceeding pro se on his First Amended Petition 18 for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. No. 19, “First Amended Petition”). On 19 January 18, 2023, the Court lifted the stay as it appeared Petitioner had exhausted his previously 20 unexhausted claims, and directed Respondent to respond to the First Amended Petition. (Doc. 21 No. 20). On January 27, 2023, the Court granted Respondent’s request to withdraw the argument 22 that Petitioner’s third ground for relief in the First Amended Petition was unexhausted, and stand 23 on the remaining arguments in the Answer. (Doc. Nos. 80, 81). On February 21, 2023 Petitioner 24 filed a reply. (Doc. No. 83). Petitioner now moves for the discovery of certain documents. (Doc. 25 No. 84). 26 A habeas petitioner, “unlike the usual civil litigant in federal court, is not entitled to 27 discovery as a matter of ordinary course.” Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899, 904 (1997). Under 28 Rule 6(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, a federal district court may in its discretion 1 | authorize discovery in a habeas proceeding for good cause. See id. at 904-05. Good cause exists 2 | if “specific allegations before the court show reason to believe that the petitioner may, if the facts 3 | are fully developed,” demonstrate entitlement to habeas relief. Smith v. Mahoney, 611 F.3d 978, 4 | 996-97 (9th Cir. 2010). However, “bald assertions and conclusory allegations” do not “provide a 5 | basis for imposing upon the state the burden of responding in discovery to every habeas petitioner 6 | who wishes to seek such discovery.” Mayberry v. Petsock, 821 F.2d 179, 185 (3d Cir. 1987) 7 | (citing Wacht v. Cardwell, 604 F.2d 1245, 1246 n.2 (9th Cir. 1979)). 8 Petitioner requests the following documents: CV’s 2015-2016 school record, and CV’s 9 | “Kaiser Medical” record. (Doc. No. 84 at 1). Petitioner contends there is good cause to order 10 | discovery of these documents because they show a “credible factual dispute” between the 11 | presentence report lodged by Respondent and “actual statements by parties in the case.” (/d.). 12 | Petitioner does not provide the Court with reason to conclude that if his motion for discovery is 13 | granted and the facts fully developed, he will be able to demonstrate he is entitled to relief. 14 | Moreover, any discovery would likely be futile because the Court’s review, under Cullen v. 15 | Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170 (2011), is limited under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) to the record that was 16 | before the state court that adjudicated the claim on the merits. See Runningeagle v. Ryan, 686 17 | F.3d 758, 773 (9th Cir. 2012) (petitioner not entitled to conduct additional discovery, expand the 18 | record, or obtain an evidentiary hearing where the state court had adjudicated the claim on the 19 | merits). For these reasons, the motion is denied. 20 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 21 Petitioner’s Motion for Discovery (Doc. No. 84) is DENIED without prejudice. 22 *3 | Dated: __April 17. 2023 Mihaw. Wh. foareh fackte 24 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA 35 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 27 28