Ransburgh v. Mississippi Dept. of Correction et al

Filing 14

ORDER denying 7 Motion for Discovery; denying 9 Motion to Produce. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker on July 19, 2012. (KM)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
HATTIESBURG DIVISION
LEWIS RANSBURGH, # 07834

PETITIONER

V.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:12cv101-KS-MTP

CHRISTOPHER EPPS

RESPONDENT
ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the court on the Petitioner’s Motions for Production of
Documents [7][9]. The court having considered the motions finds that they should be DENIED.
In his first Motion [7], Petitioner Lewis Ransburgh seeks his medical records and his
medication list relating to a uranalysis. In his second motion [9], Petitioner seeks his housing
records for May and June 2011, “to show the court he was deprived of his prison liberty because
of two unconfirmed drug’s test.” Motion [9].
The Supreme Court has held that “[a] habeas petitioner, unlike the usual civil litigant in
federal court, is not entitled to discovery as a matter of ordinary course.” Bracy v. Gramley, 520
U.S. 899, 904 (1997). Rule 6(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides that “[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. . . . ” Expounding on the “good cause”
clause under Rule 6(a), the Supreme Court stated “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, it is the duty of the court to provide the necessary
facilities and procedures for an adequate inquiry.” Bracy, 520 U.S. at 908-09 (quoting Harris v.
Nelson, 394 U.S. 286, 300 (1969)).
The Fifth Circuit has found that “[g]ood cause may be found when a petition for habeas

corpus relief ‘establishes a prima facie claim for relief.’” Murphy v. Johnson, 205 F.3d 809, 814
(5th Cir. 2000) (quoting Harris, 394 U.S. at 290). However, “a petitioner's factual allegations
must be specific, as opposed to merely speculative or conclusory, to justify discovery under Rule
6 .” Murphy, 205 F.3d at 814.
The court finds that Petitioner has failed to show good cause to allow him to conduct
discovery. Accordingly, Petitioner’s Motions for Production of Documents [7][9] should be
denied at this time. Accordingly,
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motions [7][9] for Production of
Documents are DENIED.
SO ORDERED this the 19th day of July, 2012.
s/ Michael T. Parker
United States Magistrate Judge

2