Luckett v. Hobbs
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 7 Petitioner's Motion to Compel; granting in part and denying in part 12 Petitioner's Motion for Order; granting in part and denying in part 13 Petitioner's Motion to Compel; granting in part and denying in part 14 Petitioner's Motion to Extend Time, all motions are construed as requests for leave to conduct discovery. Therefore, within 30 days of entry of this Order, Respondent is directed to file, under seal, Petitioner's ADC mental health treatment records. All of Petitioner's other requested relief is denied. Signed by Magistrate Judge J. Thomas Ray on 09/12/2014. (kcs)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION
RAY HOBBS, Director,
Arkansas Department of Correction
In this § 2254 habeas case, Petitioner argues that his untimely Petition and
procedural default should be excused due to mental incapacity from schizophrenia.
Respondent does not dispute that Petitioner is a diagnosed schizophrenic, but
counters that the “facts show that [Petitioner] was capable of filing [a timely] habeas
petition[.]” Doc. 9 at 5. Respondent relies on only one piece of evidence to support
its argument: an ADC “Status Assignment Sheet.” Doc. 9-2. This form shows the
dates of Petitioner’s various job assignments in the ADC, as well as dates showing
when Petitioner was “denied executive clemency.” Id. Because Petitioner could work
in the ADC and apply for executive clemency, Respondent argues that Petitioner has
failed to establish equitable tolling. Doc. 9 at 5.
Petitioner has filed a number of motions essentially requesting discovery.1 He
requests: (1) his ADC mental health treatment records; (2) the ADC disciplinary file
of the inmate who was the victim in Petitioner’s underlying murder conviction; and
(3) any mental health evaluation that was performed on him prior to the entry of his
In order to evaluate Respondent’s statute of limitations argument, and whether
Petitioner’s alleged incapacity may have influenced him during the time when he
should have pursued timely post-conviction relief, the Court concludes that Petitioner’
ADC mental health treatment records would be helpful. Thus, the Court will direct
Respondent to produce Petitioner’s ADC mental health treatment records. All of his
other requested discovery will be denied.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
Petitioner’s “Motion to Compel” (doc. 7), “Motion to Proceed” (doc. 12),
“Motion to Compel” (doc. 13), and “Request for Extension of Time” (doc. 14), which
are collectively construed as requests for leave to conduct discovery, are GRANTED,
IN PART, and DENIED, IN PART.
Within 30 days of entry of this Order, Respondent is directed to file,
Pursuant to Rule 6(a) of the Rules Governing § 2254 cases, the Court may, for “good cause,” authorize a party
to conduct discovery pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See also Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899, 904-09
(1997) (“A habeas petitioner, unlike the usual civil litigant in federal court, is not entitled to discovery as a matter of
ordinary course”; instead, the petitioner must first demonstrate “good cause” before obtaining the court’s permission to
engage in discovery).
under seal, Petitioner’s ADC mental health treatment records. All of Petitioner’s other
requested relief is DENIED.
Dated this 12th day of September, 2014.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?