Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00310/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00310-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHNNY LEE BRIGGS,

Petitioner,

v.

C. SCHUYLER,

Respondent.

No. 1:24-cv-00310-KES-SKO (HC)

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION 

TO CONDUCT DISCOVERY

[Doc. 16]

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He filed the instant petition on March 14, 2024. (Doc. 1.) 

Respondent filed an answer to the petition on May 3, 2024. (Doc. 10.) On June 7, 2024, the 

Court issued Findings and Recommendations to deny the petition. (Doc. 11.) The Findings and 

Recommendations are now awaiting review by the District Court. 

Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s motion to conduct discovery which he filed on 

September 6, 2024. (Doc. 16.) Petitioner provides no valid reason for conducting discovery and 

discovery in any case would be futile. Therefore, the motion will be DENIED.

DISCUSSION

The writ of habeas corpus is not a proceeding in the original criminal prosecution but an 

independent civil suit.” Riddle v. Dyche, 262 U.S. 333, 335-336 (1923); See, e.g., Keeney v. 

Tamayo-Reyes, 504 U.S. 1, 14 (1992) (O’Connor, J., dissenting). A habeas proceeding does not 

Case 1:24-cv-00310-KES-SKO Document 17 Filed 09/11/24 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

proceed to “trial,” and “unlike the usual civil litigant in federal court, [a habeas corpus petitioner]

is not entitled to discovery as a matter of ordinary course.” Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899, 903-

05 (1997); Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286, 295 (1969). Instead, modern habeas corpus procedure 

has the same function as an ordinary appeal. Anderson v. Butler, 886 F.2d 111, 113 (5th Cir. 

1989); O’Neal v. McAnnich, 513 U.S. 440, 442 (1995) (federal court’s function in habeas corpus 

proceedings is to “review errors in state criminal trials” (emphasis omitted)). Indeed, the United 

States Supreme Court has reaffirmed that, under AEDPA review, “evidence introduced in federal 

court has no bearing on § 2254(d)(1) review. If a claim has been adjudicated on the merits by a 

state court, a federal habeas petitioner must overcome the limitations of § 2254(d)(1) on the 

record that was before that state court.” Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170, 185 (2011)

(emphasis supplied); see 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) (setting forth the applicable standard for federal 

habeas review as whether the state court adjudication was “contrary to” or an “unreasonable 

application” of “clearly established federal law”). 

As a result, a habeas petitioner does not have the right to inquire into all matters which are 

relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action, whether admissible at trial or not. 

Harris, 394 U.S. at 297. “Such a broad-ranging preliminary inquiry is neither necessary nor 

appropriate in the context of a habeas corpus proceeding.” Id. Elaborate discovery procedures 

would cause substantial delay to prisoners and place a heavy burden upon courts, prison officials, 

prosecutors, and police. Id. Although discovery is available pursuant to Rule 6, it is only granted 

at the Court’s discretion, and upon a showing of good cause. Bracy, 520 U.S. at 903-50; Rich v. 

Calderon, 187 F.3d 1064, 1068 (9th Cir. 1999); Rule 6(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254. 

The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 6 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases emphasize 

that Rule 6 was not intended to extend to habeas corpus petitioners, as a matter of right, the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure’s broad discovery provisions. Rule 6, Advisory Committee 

Notes (quoting Harris, 394 U.S. at 295). Indeed, “[h]abeas is an important safeguard whose goal 

is to correct real and obvious wrongs. It was never meant to be a fishing expedition for habeas 

petitioners to explore their case in search of its existence.” Rich, 187 F.3d at 1067.

Here, Petitioner has failed to provide any reason for his discovery request pursuant to Rule 

Case 1:24-cv-00310-KES-SKO Document 17 Filed 09/11/24 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

6 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, and has not shown good cause. The Court has also 

reviewed Petitioner’s claims under § 2254 habeas standards and issued Findings and 

Recommendations to deny the claims as meritless. Thus, any discovery would be futile insofar as

the Court’s review, under Pinholster, is limited to the record that was before the state court that 

adjudicated the claim on the merits. See Runningeagle v. Ryan, 686 F.3d 758, 773 (9th Cir. 2012) 

(petitioner not entitled to conduct additional discovery, expand the record, or obtain an 

evidentiary hearing where the state court had adjudicated the claim on the merits). 

ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that Petitioner’s motion for 

discovery (Doc. 16) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 10, 2024 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-00310-KES-SKO Document 17 Filed 09/11/24 Page 3 of 3