IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
May 21, 2009
CURTIS JAMELL MEEKS, PETITIONER,
T. FELKER, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.
1. Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in a habeas corpus action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On July 11, 2007, petitioner filed a request for discovery, seeking an affidavit from witness Ana Garcia.
2. Under Rule 6(a), a district court has discretion to authorize discovery "for good cause." Good cause exists "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 v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899, 908-- 09 (1997) (quoting Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286, 300 (1969)) (alteration in original). Moreover, Rule 6(b) requires that the "party requesting discovery . . . provide reasons for the request."
3. Petitioner's request failed to explain why this court might have good cause to authorize the discovery he seeks. In particular, the request failed to explain the connection between the desired affidavit, what discovery he specifically seeks, and why the anticipated information to be discovered will support the grounds for relief raised by his petition. Nor did Petitioner provide reasons for seeking the affidavit.
4. Accordingly, Petitioner is hereby granted 14 days from the date of filing of this order to show cause, if any he has, by filing an amended discovery request providing the necessary Rule 6 information identified in the third paragraph of this Order.
5. Respondent Felker shall have 7 days following service of any amended discovery request to file a responsive memorandum addressing Petitioner's discovery request.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: this 21st day of May, 2009, at Seattle, Washington
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.