Mourning v. Correction

Filing 25

ORDER denying 21 Motion to Compel Discovery without prejudice. Signed by Judge Victor A. Bolden on 11/3/2015. (Dearing, S.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

MICHAEL MOURNING,
Petitioner,

:
:
:
:
:
:
:

v.
COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION,
Respondent.

CASE NO. 3:14cv845 (VAB)

RULING ON MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
Petitioner, Michael Mourning, filed this habeas corpus action pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his 2008 conviction for sale of narcotics. Petition, ECF No. 1.
Mr. Mourning has filed a motion to compel discovery, ECF No. 21. For the following
reasons, his motion is DENIED without prejudice. To be granted, any new motion that
Mr. Mourning may file must satisfy the good cause standard articulated below.
Habeas petitioners are not entitled to conduct discovery as a routine matter.
Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899, 904 (1997) (“A habeas petitioner, unlike the usual civil
litigant in federal court, is not entitled to discovery as a matter of ordinary course.”).
Rule 6(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides that “[a] judge may, for
good cause, authorize a party to conduct discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.” To demonstrate good cause, a petitioner must present “‘specific
allegations’” which give the Court “‘reason to believe that the petitioner may, if the facts
are fully developed, be able to demonstrate that he is… entitled to relief.’” Bracy, 520
U.S. at 908-09 (alteration in original) (quoting Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286, 300
(1969)).
Mr. Mourning’s Motion to Compel Discovery appears to seek leave of the Court

1

to conduct discovery in this case. He asks the Court to compel responses for requests for
admission that he argues “would help [him] prepare a proper defense.” Mot. to Compel
Discovery 1, ECF No. 21.
The Court finds that Mr. Mourning’s motion fails to demonstrate that good cause
for discovery exists in this case. His motion conclusorily notes that discovery would help
him defend his petition. But he does not precisely explain how, nor does he attach the
requests for admission he proposes. Thus, the Court has no basis to determine whether
the discovery sought is relevant to the Petition, much less whether good cause exists to
allow it. See Edwards v. Superintendent, Southport C.F., 991 F. Supp. 2d 348, 364
(E.D.N.Y. 2013) (denying a request for discovery that contained a list of “broad and
speculative” discovery requests “without any discussion of their potential utility”)
(citation omitted).
Mr. Mourning also fails to address adequately the relevant inquiry in assessing
whether good cause for discovery exists—namely the likelihood that he is entitled to the
relief he seeks in his Petition. See Bracy, 520 U.S. at 908-09. The fact that discovery
material would be helpful in resolving a habeas petition does not indicate that it is
warranted under the good cause standard. See Hirschfeld v. Comm’r of the Div. of
Parole, 215 F.R.D. 464, 465 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (denying request for discovery because
petitioner failed to “make specific allegations” showing that he might be entitled to relief
on his petition if the depositions he sought were allowed); Charles v. Artuz, 21 F. Supp.
2d 168, 169 (E.D.N.Y. 1998) (denying a motion for discovery which claimed “in
conclusory fashion” that petitioner needed the discovery “‘to fairly and adequately
present his Federal law claims… in their appropriate manner.’”).

2

In Mr. Mourning’s Reply Brief, he notes that the good cause standard applies but
fails to explain how he can satisfy it. Reply Br. 1-2, ECF No. 23. Instead, he merely
summarizes aspects of his petition. Id. at 1. “Generalized statements are not sufficient to
establish the requisite ‘good cause’” for discovery in resolving a habeas petition.
Edwards, 991 F. Supp. 2d at 364 (collecting cases).
For all of the foregoing reasons, Mr. Mourning’s Motion to Compel Discovery,
ECF No. 21, is DENIED without prejudice.
SO ORDERED this 3rd day of November 2015, at Bridgeport, Connecticut.
/s/ Victor A. Bolden
Victor A. Bolden
United States District Judge

3