Mendiola v. Thaler

Filing 10

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING 9 Motion for Discovery Signed by Judge Kathleen Cardone. (dl1)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
EL PASO DIVISION
LUIS MENDIOLA,
TDCJ # 1798740,
Petitioner,
5.
RICK THALER,
Director, Texas Department of
Criminal Justice, Correctional
Institutions Division,
Respondent.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

EP-13-CV-30-KC

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
DENYING MOTION FOR DISCOVERY
In a pro se motion [ECF No. 9], Petitioner Luis Mendiola (“Mendiola”), a state prisoner1
at the Sanchez Unit in El Paso, Texas, asks the Court to authorize him to conduct discovery.
Mendiola claims he needs “‘ALL’ documents and trial court records to aid and assist him”2 with
his petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
“A habeas petitioner, unlike the usual civil litigant in federal court, is not entitled to
discovery as a matter of ordinary course.”3 Parties must obtain leave of the Court to conduct
discovery in proceedings pursuant to Rule 6 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Proceedings.4

1

A state district court in El Paso County, Texas, found Mendiola guilty of driving while
intoxicated and sentenced him to two years’ imprisonment. He did not appeal his conviction.
See State v. Mendiola, Cause No. 20020D03808 (168th Dist. Ct., El Paso Cnty., Tex. June 13,
2012); Ex parte Mendiola, No. WR-78,771-01, 2013 WL 173195 (Tex. Crim. App. Jan. 16,
2013).
2

Mot. for Discovery 2 (emphasis in original).

3

Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899, 904 (1997).

4

See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Proc. R. 6(a) (stating that leave of Court is required before parties
in a § 2254 proceeding may engage in discovery).

Furthermore, a court may authorize discovery in a § 2254 proceeding only upon a showing of
good cause.5 The Fifth Circuit has held that “good cause” may be found when a petition for a
writ of habeas corpus “establishes a prima facie claim for relief.”6 Before authorizing discovery,
the Court must first conclude that the specific allegations in the motion “show reason to believe
that the petitioner may, if the facts are fully developed, be able to demonstrate that he is confined
illegally and is therefore entitled to relief.”7 In that regard, a movant’s factual allegations “must
be specific, as opposed to merely speculative or conclusory, to justify discovery.”8 “Simply put,
Rule 6 does not authorize fishing expeditions.”9
In his § 2254 petition [ECF No. 5], Mendiola challenges the calculation of his sentence,
the validity of his sentence and sentence enhancement, and the denial of his release to mandatory
supervision. In his instant motion, Mendiola seeks “‘ALL’ documents and trial court records”10
including, but not limited to, witness statements, indictments, jury notes, court charges, docket
sheets, notices of appeal, and appellate decisions. Mendiola does not, however, provide specific
facts showing that, if the Court allowed the proposed discovery to proceed, he would prevail in
his § 2254 petition. Thus, Mendiola’s instant motion falls far short of the showing of good cause

5

Id.

6

Murphy v. Johnson, 205 F.3d 809, 814 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 957 (2000); see
also Hill v. Johnson, 210 F.3d 481, 487 (5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 1039 (2001).
7

Id.

8

Id.

9

Id.; see also Ward v. Whitley, 21 F.3d 1355, 1367 (5th Cir. 1994).

10

Mot. for Discovery 2 (emphasis in original).
-2-

necessary to permit discovery under Rule 6.
Accordingly, after due consideration, Mendiola’s pro se motion [ECF No. 9] is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
SIGNED this 2nd day of April 2013.

______________________________________
KATHLEEN CARDONE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-3-