Brown v. Arnold

Filing 18

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 10/13/2015 DENYING petitioner's 17 motion to conduct discovery. (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RICHARD BROWN,

12

No. 2:14-cv-2922 MCE AC P

Petitioner,

13

v.

14

ERIC ARNOLD,

15

ORDER

Respondents.

16
17

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

18

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On May 13, 2015, petitioner filed a separate motion for leave to

19

conduct discovery. ECF No. 17.

20

Discovery may be conducted in a habeas case by leave of court upon a showing of good

21

cause. Rule 6, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. Good

22

cause exists where specific allegations before the court show reason to believe that petitioner

23

may, if the facts are fully developed, be able to demonstrate that he is entitled to relief. Bracy v.

24

Gramley, 520 U.S. 899, 901-09 (1997).

25

In his motion, petitioner seeks leave to request discovery related to the calculation of

26

another inmate’s parole and release date calculations. Id. The requested documents have no

27

bearing on petitioner’s claim that he is being subjected to a repealed standard resulting in an

28

unlawful sentence. ECF No. 1. The request will therefore be denied.
1

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s motion to conduct discovery

2

(ECF No. 17) is denied.

3

DATED: October 13, 2015

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2