(HC) Nedd v. Bird

Opinion

JEFFREY S. NEDD, Case No. 1:22-cv-00704-HBK (HC) Petitioner, ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR DISCOVERY v. (Doc. No. 13) Respondent. Petitioner Jeffrey S. Need (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on June 10, 2022. (Doc. No. 1, “Petition”). On December 5, 2022, Petitioner filed a pleading entitled “Notice and Subpoena – Questions for Oral Deposition.” (Doc. No. 13). The Supreme Court has instructed federal courts to liberally construe the “inartful pleading[s]” of pro se litigants. See Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365 (1982). Thus, the Court construes Petitioner’s “Notice and Subpoena – Questions for Oral Deposition” as a motion for discovery. Although discovery is available pursuant to Rule 6 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 cases, it is granted only at the Court’s discretion, and upon a showing of good cause. Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899, 904 (1997)(“Parties in habeas cases, unlike those in ordinary civil cases, have no right to discovery.”); Jones v. Wood, 114 F.3d 1002, 1009 (9th Cir. 1997). Here, Respondent’s motion to dismiss the Petition as untimely is currently pending before the Court (Doc. No. 8); thus, Petitioner’s construed motion for discovery will be denied without prejudice as premature. In the event Respondent is ordered to respond to the Petition, Petitioner may renew his motion upon a showing of good cause once the matter is fully briefed. Similarly, if the Court determines that a status conference is warranted after reviewing the completed briefing, it will schedule one at that time. See Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, R. 8(a). Accordingly, it is ORDERED: Petitioner’s construed Motion for Discovery (Doc. No. 13) is DENIED. ' | Dated: _ December 13, 2022 Wile. Th. foareh Yack HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE