PANNELL v. NEAL

Filing 63

ENTRY Concerning Selected Matters: The respondent's third motion for extension of time [dkt. 60] is granted. The respondent shall have through November 17, 2014, in which to file an answer or return to order to show cause. The petitioner shall have twenty (20) days after service of such answer or return to order to show cause on him in which to reply. The petitioner's motion for the production of documents 56 and motion for leave to file motion for discovery 57 do not separately warrant discovery at this time. The motions [dkts. 56, 57] are therefore denied. The petitioner's motion to order respondent to grant petitioner additional access to the prison law library [dkt. 58] is denied (see Entry for details). Copy to Petitioner via US Mail. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 10/2/2014. (SWM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
DAVID PANNELL,
Petitioner,
vs.
SUPERINTENDENT, Indiana State Prison,

Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:12-cv-01301-JMS-DML

Entry Concerning Selected Matters
I.
The respondent’s third motion for extension of time [dkt. 60] is granted. The respondent
shall have through November 17, 2014, in which to file an answer or return to order to show
cause. The petitioner shall have twenty (20) days after service of such answer or return to order
to show cause on him in which to reply.
II.
Rule 6(a) of the Rules Governing ' 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. ' 2254, allows habeas corpus
petitioners to conduct civil discovery "if, and to the extent that, the judge in the exercise of his
discretion and for good cause shown grants leave to do so, but not otherwise." See Bracy v.
Bramley, 520 U.S. 899, 904 (1997) (AA habeas petitioner, unlike the usual civil litigant in federal
court, is not entitled to discovery as a matter of ordinary course@). In order to be entitled to
discovery, a petitioner must make specific factual allegations that demonstrate that there is good
reason to believe that the petitioner may, through discovery, be able to garner sufficient evidence
to entitle him to relief. See id. at 908-09.

Discovery has not been authorized in this action and the respondent has not yet filed an
answer to the petition, meaning that the court and the petitioner do not yet know whether, and to
what extent or on what basis, his claims for relief are contested here. The petitioner’s motion for
the production of documents [56] and motion for leave to file motion for discovery [57] do not
separately warrant discovery at this time. The motions [dkts. 56, 57] are therefore denied.
III.
Petitioner has also filed a motion that asks this court to order respondent to grant petitioner
additional access to the prison law library [58]. The court recognizes petitioner’s pro se status and
will accommodate the special needs associated with petitioner’s pro se status by adjusting the
briefing schedules and other matters as warranted. The petitioner’s motion to order respondent to
grant petitioner additional access to the prison law library [dkt. 58] is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
October 2, 2014
Date: __________________

Distribution:
David Pannell
DOC #963265
Indiana State Prison
Inmate Mail/Parcels
One Park Row
Michigan City, IN 46360
Electronically Registered Counsel

_______________________________
Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana