Haight v. Parker

Filing 86

ORDER by Judge Charles R. Simpson, III on 4/12/2010; for the reasons set forth in 85 Memorandum & Opinion, the court adopts the opinions of the Magistrate Judge's Orders (DNs 76,80). Petitioner's motion for discovery (DN 68) is DENIED in toto. Petitioner's Motion to Proceed ex parte (DN 67) is DENIED WITH LEAVE TO RE-FILE.cc:Counsel (SC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY AT LOUISVILLE RANDY HAIGHT, v. PHIL PARKER, Warden, Kentucky State Penitentiary, ORDER For the reasons expressed in the opinion entered today, the court hereby adopts the opinions expressed in the magistrate judge's orders (DNs 76, 80) to the extent that they are not inconsistent with the opinion entered herewith. Accordingly, Petitioner's motion for discovery (DN 68) is DENIED in toto. In addition, Petitioner's motion to proceed ex parte in seeking expert assistance (DN 67) is DENIED WITH LEAVE TO RE-FILE. Should he continue to pursue the issue, Petitioner must file and serve a concise motion seeking to have the court provide him with expert assistance that includes a short, case-specific statement of the need for confidentiality. This statement of the need for confidentiality must generically identify the type of services needed and the broad issue or topic (for example, innocence) for which the services are needed. Simultaneously, Petitioner must file ex parte and under seal his detailed application for expert aid. In this application, Petitioner must estimate the amount of fees or expenses likely to be incurred and provide specific factual support for the funding. IT IS SO ORDERED. PETITIONER CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:02-CV-206-S RESPONDENT

April 12, 2010