Washington v. Burt

Filing 12

ORDER denying 10 Motion For Limited Discovery. Signed by District Judge Patrick J. Duggan. (MOre)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
VINCENT WASHINGTON,
Petitioner,

Case No. 14-CV-11330
Honorable Patrick J. Duggan

v.
SHERRY BURT,
Respondent.
__________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE
PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR LIMITED DISCOVERY
On March 31, 2014, Petitioner Vincent Washington, a state inmate, filed a pro
se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, alleging that he is
incarcerated in violation of his constitutional rights. Pending before the Court is
Petitioner’s motion for limited discovery. The Court will deny the motion without
prejudice.
Petitioner’s motion seeks to discover new evidence in support of his claim that
the jury was tainted by extraneous influences. Habeas Rule 6(a) permits district courts
to authorize discovery in habeas corpus proceedings “for good cause.” Rules
Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, R. 6(a). As the
Sixth Circuit has noted, “[h]abeas petitioners have no right to automatic discovery.”
Stanford v. Parker, 266 F.3d 442, 460 (6th Cir. 2001). “Rule 6 embodies the principle

that a court must provide discovery in a habeas proceeding only ‘where specific
allegations before the court show reason to believe that the petitioner may, if the facts
are fully developed, be able to demonstrate that he is . . . entitled to relief.’” Williams
v. Bagley, 380 F.3d 932, 975 (6th Cir. 2004) (quoting Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S.
899, 908-09, 117 S. Ct. 1793, 1799 (1997)).
The problem for Petitioner is that in Cullen v. Pinholster, 131 S. Ct. 1388,
(2011), the Supreme Court held that where habeas claims had been decided on their
merits in state court, a federal court’s review under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) – whether
the state court determination was contrary to or an unreasonable application of
established federal law – must be confined to the record that was before the state
court. 131 S. Ct. at 1398. The Cullen Court specifically found that the district court
should not have held an evidentiary hearing regarding the petitioner’s claims until
after the court determined that the petition survived review under § 2254(d)(1). Id.
at 1398. Therefore, the Court will deny without prejudice Petitioner’s motion for
limited discovery. The Court will reconsider the request if it determines that some or
all of Petitioner’s claims survive review under § 2254(d)(1)
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for limited discovery
is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

-2-

Dated: November 7, 2014

s/PATRICK J. DUGGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to:
Vincent Washington
Jennifer K. Clark, Esq.
Laura Moody, Esq.

-3-