Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-1_03-cv-01146/USCOURTS-arwd-1_03-cv-01146-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 535
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Death Penalty
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Ptn for Writ of H/C - Stay of Execution

---

Claim I is the number of the claim at issue in the first amended petition; the claim is 1

renumbered Claim II in the second amended petition. 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

EL DORADO DIVISION

RAY DANSBY PETITIONER

V. Civil No. 03-CV-1146

LARRY NORRIS, Director,

Arkansas Department of corrections RESPONDENT

O R D E R

An evidentiary hearing is schedule for September 20,

2005. The Court has currently received a Proposed Witness

List, from Respondent, Larry Norris. Prior to this filing,

the Court addressed two letters to both parties, directing the

need for the witness list to be provided in a timely manner.

As of this date, six days prior to the scheduled hearing,

there has been no filing by Petitioner addressing potential

witnesses. Petitioner shall immediately provide the Court and

Respondent a proposed witness list. At the September 20,

2005, hearing, the Court shall be advised why the proposed

witness list was not provided as directed.

The Court also in its previous order, of November 22,

2004, which granted an evidentiary hearing, indicated that it

would receive evidence on the Claim I (Confrontation Clause 1

Claim). The Petitioner, in it Motion for Judgement on the

Case 1:03-cv-01146-RTD Document 38 Filed 09/12/05 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>
Id. 2

2

Pleadings, regarding Claim II (Confrontation Clause Claim), 2

concedes that the necessary facts were present in the

pleadings/record for the Court to conduct an adequate inquiry.

In view of this concession, the Court amends its previous

order granting an evidentiary hearing on Claim I. The Court

finds the motion for an evidentiary hearing on Claim I

(Confrontation Clause Claim) of the amended petition is

denied. 

Furthermore, the Court recognizes that Claim III (Batson

Claim)involves only an issue of procedural default and the

evidentiary hearing regarding Claim III will be limited to the

procedural default issue. 

Three motions are now before the Court, a request for

discovery and request for a postponement of the hearing on

Claim IX (Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Claim) filed by

Petitioner and a continuance filed by Respondent. 

On September 1, 2005, Petitioner filed a Motion for Leave

to Conduct Discovery. In their Response dated September 12,

2005, Respondent opposes the majority of the requests as over

burdensome and irrelevant. Petitioner requests leave to

conduct discovery on two claims, both set to be heard on

September 20, 2005. The United States Supreme Court has

clearly stated that a “habeas petitioner . . . is not entitled

to discovery as a matter of ordinary course. Bracy v.

Gramley, 520 U.S. 899, 904 (1997). Yet, district courts retain

the ability to order discovery “when it would help the court

Case 1:03-cv-01146-RTD Document 38 Filed 09/12/05 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>
Id. 3

3

make a reliable determination with respect to the prisoner’s

claims.” Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390, 444 (1993)

Blackman, J. dissenting on other grounds) (quoting Harris v.

Nelson, 394 U.S. 286, 299-300 (1969). However, he fails to

meet the requirement of “good cause” to order discovery. See

28 U.S.C. § 2254 Rule 6(a) (stating that a party is entitled

to discovery “for good cause shown. . . but not otherwise.”)

Petitioner has conceded, in both the current motion and

a previously filed Motion for Judgement on the Pleadings as to

Claim II (Confrontation Clause Claim)of the Petitioner’s

Amended Petition that the facts he is seeking to “discover” 3

are not necessary to his claim. Therefore, he is not entitled

by law to discovery of Claim I (in this instance, Claim I and

Claim II are identical claims, there are differently numbered

in the several supplemental and amended petitions).

Petitioner also seeks to conduct discovery on Claim III

(Batson Challenge Claim). This discovery request appears to

be no more than a “fishing expedition.” Petitioner’s requests

for documents are so broad as to render the request

unreasonable and not reasonably related to the issues

involved. Nonetheless, in light of the Court’s above order

limiting the hearing on Claim III to the procedural default

issue, Petitioner’s discovery request is mooted. Petitioner’s

Motion for Leave to Conduct Discovery is Denied. 

Additionally, Petitioner has filed a motion to postpone

the hearing on Claim IX (Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

Case 1:03-cv-01146-RTD Document 38 Filed 09/12/05 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>
4

Claim), citing a previous misunderstanding as to which issues

could be presented at the hearing. Judicial economy will not

be met by having two separate hearings. All granted issues

will be heard at the same time and Petitioner’s motion to

postpone one of five granted issues is Denied. 

Also before the Court is Respondent’s unopposed Motion

for Continuance. However, if Petitioner is not permitted to

call any witnesses other than Judge Van Hook, Mr. Barker and

Mr. Taylor, and withdraws from the severance motion,

Respondent will not request a continuance. 

The evidentiary hearing has been continued on two

previous occasions. The Court has reservations about any

further, unnecessary delay. Respondent will be provided the

necessary information to prepare for witnesses called at the

hearing or this issue will be addressed further at the

scheduled hearing. Respondent’s Motion for Continuance is

Denied for the present. 

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 12th day of September 2005.

 /s/ Robert T. Dawson 

Robert T. Dawson

United States District Judge

Case 1:03-cv-01146-RTD Document 38 Filed 09/12/05 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>