Reyna v. Stephens

Filing 12

OPINION AND ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS; denying without prejudice 4 Motion for Leave to File; denying without prejudice 5 Motion for Leave to File; denying without prejudice 6 Motion for Leave to File; granting 7 Motion for Leave to File.(Signed by Magistrate Judge B. Janice Ellington) Parties notified.(lcayce, 2)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
SAMUEL RODRIGUEZ REYNA,
Petitioner,
VS.
WILLIAM STEPHENS,
Respondent.

§
§
§
§ CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:14-CV-54
§
§
§
§

OPINION AND ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS
In this § 2254 petition, Petitioner Reyna challenges his Nueces County conviction
and 99-year sentence for murder (D.E. 1). He has paid the $5.00 filing fee and service of
process has been ordered (D.E. 11). Pending are four motions: (1) for appointment of
counsel (D.E. 4); (2) for leave to conduct discovery (D.E. 5); (3) for leave to file a first
motion for extension of time (D.E. 6); and (4) for leave to file documents (D.E. 7).
Petitioner’s motion for leave to file documents, treated as a motion to supplement
his petition (D.E. 7) is granted. All supplemental documents are attached to his motion,
and his petition shall be considered supplemented with his attachments. Petitioner also
has filed a motion for leave to file a first motion for extension of time (D.E. 6). Evidently
Petitioner has difficulty ambulating because of injuries and it is difficult for him to attend
law library sessions. There are presently no deadlines in the case; hence Petitioner’s
motion for an extension of time (D.E. 6) is denied without prejudice. If and when
Respondent files a motion for summary judgment, Petitioner will have 30 days to file his

1/3

response. If Petitioner needs additional time to file a response, he may re-file his motion
for an extension of time.
Petitioner also requests appointment of counsel (D.E. 4). There is no
constitutional right to counsel in federal habeas proceedings. Johnson v. Hargett, 978
F.2d 855 (5th Cir. 1992). Rule 8 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases requires that
counsel be appointed if the habeas petition raises issues which mandate an evidentiary
hearing. Service of process was ordered on March 5, 2014 (D.E. 11), and at this point
there are no issues which mandate an evidentiary hearing.
An evidentiary hearing will be scheduled and counsel will be assigned sua sponte
if there are issues which mandate a hearing. Moreover, counsel may be assigned if
discovery is ordered and issues necessitating the assignment of counsel are evident. Rule
6(a) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases; Thomas v. Scott, 47 F.3d 713, 715 n. 1 (5th
Cir. 1995). Accordingly, petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel (D.E. 4) is
denied without prejudice.
Finally, Petitioner’s request for leave to conduct discovery (D.E. 5) is denied
without prejudice as premature. Petitioner has not provided adequate reasons to support
his request to conduct discovery. Rule 6(b), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.
Respondent has not yet filed an answer, and the court is in no position to evaluate
whether the discovery sought is relevant to the issues that will be before the Court.
Petitioner requests copies of discovery outside of the state court record. He is not entitled
to conduct discovery solely because the information he seeks is not in the state court
record. For instance, if Petitioner has not properly exhausted, if his filing is barred by
2/3

limitations, or if he has already raised his issues in a previous habeas petition, the merits
of his claims will not be reached. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(a), 2244(d), 2254(b)(1). He is also
not entitled to conduct discovery unless he can satisfy the court that his failure to develop
the factual basis for his claim before the State court proceedings meets the test in 28
U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2).
All relief not granted by this order is DENIED.
ORDERED this 11th day of March, 2014.

___________________________________
B. JANICE ELLINGTON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3/3