Crane v. Director Of Corrections et al

Filing 58

ORDER denying 49 Motion to Appoint Counsel and conduct discovery signed by Magistrate Judge Charlene H. Sorrentino on 12/2/11. (Kaminski, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

GARRETT MORGAN CRANE,

11
12
13
14

Petitioner,

No. CIV S-09-983 MCE CHS

vs.
DOMINGO URIBE, JR., Warden,
Respondent.

15
16
17

ORDER
/
Crane, a state prisoner, proceeds pro se with a first amended petition for writ of

18

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Crane seeks an order appointing counsel and

19

permitting counsel to conduct discovery and expand the record accordingly.

20

There currently exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas

21

corpus proceedings. See Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d 453, 460 (9th Cir. 1996). “[I]f the interests

22

of justice so require,” however, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A authorizes the appointment of counsel at any

23

stage of the case. See Rule 8(c), Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases.

24

In addition, “[a] habeas petitioner, unlike the usual civil litigant in federal court, is

25

not entitled to discovery as a matter of ordinary course.” Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899, 904

26

(1997). Under Rule 6(a) of the Rules Governing §2254 Cases, a party is entitled to discovery “if,
1

1

and to the extent that, the judge in the exercise of his discretion and for good cause shown grants

2

leave to do so....” Good cause exists “where specific allegations before the court show reason to

3

believe that the petitioner may, if the facts are fully developed, be able to demonstrate that he is

4

entitled to relief.” Id. at 908-09.

5

Importantly, however, the United States Supreme Court recently held that federal

6

habeas corpus review under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) “is limited to the record that was before the

7

state court that adjudicated the claim on the merits.” Cullen v. Pinholster, 131 S. Ct. 1388, 1398

8

(2011). Although Pinholster dealt specifically with evidentiary hearings and did not directly

9

address the scope of discovery under Rule 6(a) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, district

10

courts have relied on the case to limit discovery in connection with petitions for habeas corpus

11

relief. See, e.g., Sok v. Substance Abuse Treatment Facility, 2011 WL 1930408, *2 (E.D. Cal.)

12

(finding no basis to permit discovery because, “pursuant to Pinholster,” the court was “limited to

13

reviewing only the record that was before the state courts”).

14

Crane fails to demonstrate good cause to conduct discovery. It further appears

15

that the interests of justice do not require the appointment of counsel at this time. Accordingly,

16

his June 8, 2011 motion to appoint counsel and conduct discovery and expand the record is

17

hereby DENIED.

18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19

DATED: December 2, 2011

CHARLENE H. SORRENTINO
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2