Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-2_01-cv-01601/USCOURTS-alnd-2_01-cv-01601-0/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

---

Reference to a document number, [“Doc. ___”], refers to the number assigned to 1

each document as it is filed in the court’s record.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DANNY JOE BRADLEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

STATE OF ALABAMA, et al.,

Defendants.

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

CASE NO. CV 01-B-1601-S

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

This case is before the court on the Renewed Motion to Dismiss (doc. 32) filed by 1

defendants. Defendants move the court to dismiss this action for failure to state a claim

upon which relief can be granted. Specifically, defendants argue that for plaintiff to

prevail in this lawsuit, he must demonstrate that the denial of the physical evidence which

he seeks for DNA testing, sought after all of his state and federal appeals have concluded,

deprived him of a federally protected right. Defendants argue that none of plaintiff's

claims in this case state a constitutional violation. Plaintiff argues that “established

principles of substantive due process support recognition of a post-conviction right to

compel production of potentially exculpatory evidence arbitrarily withheld by the state.” 

Plaintiff's Memo of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Defendants' Renewed Motion

to Dismiss at 5. Plaintiff also suggests that the court consider deferring the issues raised

FILED

 2006 Mar-31 AM 10:25

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 2:01-cv-01601-SLB-PWG Document 34 Filed 03/31/06 Page 1 of 3
The court is aware that once discovery is completed, the grounds raised in defendants'

2

Motion may become moot; nevertheless, the court has decided that rather than address

complicated constitutional issues regarding the right of a defendant in a post-conviction

proceeding to seek DNA evidence, the court will allow limited discovery. Moreover, the issues

raised in defendants’ Motion to Dismiss may be mooted by the Innocence Protection Act of

2004. Of course, once plaintiff has the discovery, he can determine whether he has sufficient

evidence to file a second habeas petition. 

in defendants' Renewed Motion to Dismiss “until such time as a definitive determination

can be made as to whether the particular critical items of forensic evidence sought by Mr.

Bradley for testing are still available for that purpose.” Id. at 17. Counsel for Bradley

notes, this discovery may “effectively resolve this action without any need for

adjudication of the due process issue.” Id. at 18. The court has determined to follow this

suggestion. 

Therefore, upon consideration of defendants' Renewed Motion to Dismiss and

plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendants' Renewed Motion, it is hereby ORDERED that

defendants' Renewed Motion to Dismiss is DENIED without prejudice to refiling. On 2

or before April 21, 2006, defendants shall FILE a verified statement, which shall set forth

each piece of evidence capable of DNA testing and whether the evidence is available for

testing. If the evidence is unavailable, defendants shall state efforts to locate the evidence

and ultimate disposition of the evidence. For each piece of evidence found in defendants’

possession and not provided to plaintiff for testing, defendants shall inform the court of

their reason for denying plaintiff access to such evidence. Thereafter, on or before 

May 8, 2006, plaintiff shall file a written statement indicating what, if any, additional

discovery he seeks.

Case 2:01-cv-01601-SLB-PWG Document 34 Filed 03/31/06 Page 2 of 3
It is further ORDERED that this matter is SET for a status conference at 10:00

a.m. on May 12, 2006. The conference will be conducted by way of a telephone call

which will be initiated by the court. 

DONE, this 30th day of March, 2006.

 

SHARON LOVELACE BLACKBURN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:01-cv-01601-SLB-PWG Document 34 Filed 03/31/06 Page 3 of 3