Baker v. Goodrich et al

Filing 18

ORDER denying 13 Motion to Receive Press Coverage; denying 16 Motion Requesting Funds to have FBI Gun Expert at Proceedings; denying 17 Motion to Subpoena. Ordered by US Mag Judge Stephen Hyles on 9/20/11. (AGH)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
COLUMBUS DIVISION
ROGER LEE BAKER, JR.,
Petitioner,
v.
Warden BARRY GOODRICH,
Respondent.
_________________________________

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CASE NO. 4:11-CV-80-CDL-MSH
28 U.S.C. § 2254

ORDER
Presently pending before the Court are Petitioner’s Motion to Receive Press
Coverage in the Above Styled Case (ECF No. 13), Motion Requesting Funds to Have
FBI Gun Expert at Proceeding(s) (ECF No. 16), and his third Motion to Subpoena (ECF
No. 17). For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff’s motions are denied.
DISCUSSION
I.

Motion to Receive Press Coverage
Petitioner moves this Court to “grant press coverage in concerns of the GBI

destroying key pieces of state evidence.” (Mot. to Receive Press Coverage 1.) More
specifically, Petitioner requests that this Court have a “reporter from WSB TV 2” present
at any potential hearing. (Id. at 2.) The Court cannot and will not require a member of
the press to be present at a specific hearing. However, Petitioner’s case is not sealed or
otherwise restricted. A member of the press who wishes to appear at a public hearing can
do so. This motion is denied.

II.

Motion Requesting Funds to Have FBI Gun Expert at Proceeding(s) and
Motion to Subpoena
In his second motion, Petitioner seeks funds to hire a “FBI Gun-expert for expert

testimony concerning wounds that are left by a .45 caliber hollow point bullet.” (Mot.
Req. Funds 1.) Petitioner also requests that this Court issue a subpoena to such gun
expert. (Id.) Petitioner requests in his third motion that the Court order “the Talbot
county Courts and the Georgia Bureau Investigators (sic) to turn over all physical
evidence to the U.S. Courts” to prove Petitioner’s allegation of a conspiracy against him.
Petitioner’s second and third motions are likewise denied.
Through these requests, Petitioner is attempting to conduct discovery. Rule 6(a)
of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts
authorizes a judge, “for good cause,” to allow discovery to proceed in § 2254 cases. A
party requesting such discovery “must provide reasons for the request[,]” and such
request “must also include any proposed interrogatories and requests for admission, and
must specify any requested documents.” Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the
United States District Courts Rule 6(b). The Court finds no good cause at this time to
allow Petitioner to conduct discovery,1 and consequently his motions are denied.
The Court notes that Petitioner has moved twice before to subpoena witnesses,
specifically a gun expert. (See Mot. to Subpoena, ECF No. 8; Req. to Subpoena, ECF
No. 10.) Both prior motions were denied as premature since Petitioner has not been
given leave of court to conduct discovery in this case. (Order, July 11, 2011, ECF No. 9;
1

Respondent has not even had an opportunity to respond to Petitioner’s application for habeas
relief. Such response is not due until mid-October.
2

Text Only Order, July 18, 2011.) The Court will not continue to entertain motions
requesting the same relief that has already been denied. If Petitioner wishes to conduct
discovery in this case, Petitioner should allow Respondent to file a response to his
petition for habeas relief then seek leave to conduct discovery in compliance with Rules
6(a) and (b) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District
Courts.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, Petitioner’s Motion to Receive Press Coverage in
the Above Styled Case (ECF No. 13), Motion Requesting Funds to Have FBI Gun Expert
at Proceeding(s) (ECF No. 16), and his third Motion to Subpoena (ECF No. 17) are
DENIED.
SO ORDERED, this 20th day of September, 2011.
S/ Stephen Hyles
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3