Schillinger v. NH State Prison, Warden

Filing 27

ORDER denying 6 Motion for Hearing ; denying 7 Motion for Help with Discovery; denying 8 Motion for Hearing with Mental Competency Experts. Schillingers motions (doc. nos. 6-8) are denied as premature, without prejudice to refiling if this court directs respondent to answer the petition, and the respondent files a pleading responsive to that order. So Ordered by Chief Judge Joseph N. Laplante.(cmp)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Greg Schillinger
v.

Civil No. 12-cv-423-JD

New Hampshire State Prison Warden

ORDER

Before the court in this habeas action are three motions
filed by petitioner Greg Schillinger (doc. nos. 6-8).
motions, Schillinger seeks an order:

In these

(1) scheduling a hearing on

his habeas petition; (2) appointing an expert to evaluate the
reliability of the testimony of the minor victim in his criminal
case, and to expand the record in this court to include the
results of that evaluation; (3) obtaining from the New Hampshire
Department of Safety a copy of Schillinger’s criminal record, and
expanding the record in this court to include that information;
(4) directing the State to provide Schillinger and this court
with transcripts of state court proceedings held in 2001 and
2003; and (4) directing third parties to provide this court with
letters generated by Dr. Ralph Underwager, and to expand the
record in this court to include those letters.
All of the relief requested by Schillinger is premature.
This court has not yet completed its review of the facial

validity of Schillinger’s habeas petition, and has not yet
determined whether the respondent must answer the petition.

If

the respondent is directed to file an answer, the respondent will
also file relevant portions of the transcript and briefs filed by
Schillinger in the NHSC.

See Rules 5(c)-5(d) of the Rules

Governing Section 2254 Cases in the U.S. District Courts.
Whether the record thereafter must be expanded, and whether a
hearing is necessary, are issues to be decided only if, and
after, this court requires the respondent to file its answer.
Conclusion
Schillinger’s motions (doc. nos. 6-8) are denied as
premature, without prejudice to refiling if this court directs
respondent to answer the petition, and the respondent files a
pleading responsive to that order.
SO ORDERED.

Joseph N. Laplante
United States District Judge
Dated:
cc:

February 1, 2013

Greg Schillinger, pro se

2