Cranford v. Employees of Coalinga State Hospital

Filing 8

ORDER DENYING 5 Petitioner's Motion for Discovery signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 11/7/2014. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11

ARCHIE CRANFORD,

12
13
14
15

Case No. 1:14-cv-01321-SAB-HC
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S
MOTION FOR DISCOVERY

Petitioner,
v.

(ECF No. 5)
EMPLOYEES OF COALINGA HOSPITAL,
Respondents.

16
17

Petitioner is proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

18 U.S.C. § 2254. He has consented to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28
19 U.S.C. § 636(c).
20

On October 17, 2014, Petitioner filed the instant motion for discovery.

21

Although discovery is available pursuant to Rule 6, it is only granted at the Court’s

22 discretion, and upon a showing of good cause. Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899, 904 (1997);
23 McDaniel v. United States Dist. Court (Jones), 127 F.3d 886, 888 (9th Cir. 1997); Jones v.
24 Wood, 114 F.3d 1002, 1009 (9th Cir. 1997); Rule 6(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254.
25 Good cause is shown “where specific allegations before the court show reason to believe that the
26 petitioner may, if the facts are fully developed, be able to demonstrate that he is . . . entitled to
27 relief.” Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. at 908-09 (citing Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 287 (1969).
28 Discovery will not be allowed so that the petition can “explore [his] case in search of its

1

1 existence,” looking for new constitutional claims. See Rich v. Calderon, 187 F.3d 1064, 1067
2 (9th Cir. 1999). If good cause is shown, the extent and scope of discovery is within the court’s
3 discretion. See Habeas Rule 6(a).
Here, Petitioner does not state any specific requests for discovery. In fact, he does not

4

5 discuss discovery at all in his motion. Petitioner only discusses computation of time and that the
6 “complaint was filed two-and-a-half years past.” As Petitioner has not made any specific request
7 for discovery, the motion must be denied.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for discovery is

8

9 DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12 Dated:

November 7, 2014
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2