Savoy v Elayn Hunt Correctional Center
Filing
10
MEMORANDUM ORDER denying 9 Motion for All Pretrial Records Not Available to Plaintiff. Signed by Magistrate Judge C Michael Hill on 4/23/2015. (crt,Haik, K)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MARK JAMES SAVOY
LA. DOC #580262
VS.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:15-0398
SECTION P
JUDGE DOHERTY
ROBERT TANNER, WARDEN ELAYN HUNT
CORRECTIONAL CENTER
MAGISTRATE JUDGE HILL
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Before the court is a letter filed by pro se petitioner Mark James Savoy in
connection with his petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254
which has been construed as a Motion. [rec. doc. 9]. By this Motion, petitioner requests
a copy of the entire state court record, including all evidence entered at trial by the State
to "upgrade" his charge from Simple Kidnaping to Second Degree Kidnaping, which
petitioner believes will support his insufficiency of the evidence and ineffective
assistance of counsel claims. In essence, petitioner seeks discovery of the entire state
court record, in order comb the record in search of additional support for his claims and
arguments. Under the circumstances of this case, petitioner's request can not be
permitted.
This Court's record indicates that petitioner has filed an original and a standardized
Petition with accompanying briefs and exhibits in which he sets forth the following
claims: (1) that there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions; (2) that his
right to a speedy trial was violated; (3) that he received ineffective assistance of trial
counsel; and (4) that he received ineffective assistance of appellate counsel . [See rec.
docs. 1 and 5].
Rule 6 of the Rules Governing §2254 Cases provides in pertinent part:
(a) Leave of Court Required.
A judge may, for good cause, authorize a party to conduct
discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and may
limit the extent of discovery. . . .
The decision as to whether to permit discovery is committed to the sound
discretion of the district court. Clark v. Johnson, 202 F.3d 760, 765-766 (5th Cir. 2000).
Conclusory allegations are not enough to warrant discovery; the petitioner must set forth
specific allegations of fact. Ward v. Whitley, 21 F.3d 1355, 1367 (5th Cir. 1994).
Moreover, Rule 6, which permits the district court to order discovery on good cause
shown, does not authorize fishing expeditions. Ward, 21 F.3d at 1367. Succinctly stated,
“Habeas corpus is not a general form of relief for those who seek to explore their case in
search of its existence." Id.
The Court has not yet completed initial review of petitioner's claims, and
accordingly, the State has not yet been ordered to respond to petitioner's claims.1 At this
stage of the proceedings, petitioner's request is therefore premature. Further, review of
petitioner's pleadings reveals that petitioner has more than adequately presented his
claims to this Court, citing jurisprudence in support of same. Thus, good cause has not
been demonstrated.
1
Before reaching the merits of a habeas claim, a preliminary review of the pleadings and exhibits
is conducted in order to determine whether the petitioner has exhausted all available state remedies prior
to filing his petition in federal court; whether the petition is time-barred by the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §
2244(d); and, whether any of the claims raised are subject to the procedural default doctrine.
In sum, under these circumstances of this case, discovery, and more specifically,
the production of the entire state court record and evidence admitted at trial, is not
warranted. It appears clear that this request is premature at this time. Further, it appears
that petitioner merely wishes to engage in a fishing expedition and has not demonstrated
good cause for his request. For these reasons;
Petitioner’s Motion [doc. 9] is DENIED.
THUS DONE AND SIGNED in Chambers at Lafayette, Louisiana, April 23,
2015.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?