Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01869/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01869-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Damien Lee Davis
Petitioner
Marion Spearman
Respondent

Document Text:

1

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

29

30

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

29

30

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAMIEN LEE DAVIS,

Petitioner,

v.

MARION SPEARMAN, WARDEN,

Respondent.

CASE NO. 1:15-cv-01869-LJO-SKO HC 

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S 

REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY

(Doc. 24)

On May 9, 2016, Petitioner mailed a motion in which he moved for discovery of (1) telephone 

calls made from the jail to a specific number on ten different dates; (2) discovery of all telephone calls 

including the so-called “12 missing phone calls”; (3) copies of a confession and associated police 

reports; and (4) the supplemental police report to which the parole board referred in Exhibit K of the 

parole revocation hearing. Petitioner does not articulate any reason for his request beyond asserting that 

the requests are legitimate evidentiary requests.

“Habeas petitioners are not routinely entitled to discovery.” Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899, 

904 (1997). The discovery provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not generally apply in 

habeas cases. Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286, 295 (1969). See Rule 6(a) of the Rules Governing § 2254 

Cases (“A judge may, for good cause, authorize a party to conduct discovery under the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure and may limit the extent of discovery”). In the absence of any articulated reason for the 

discovery request, Petitioner cannot be said to have established good cause.

Case 1:15-cv-01869-LJO-SKO Document 26 Filed 05/18/16 Page 1 of 2
2

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

29

30

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

29

30

Respondent has already filed the state court record in this case. “[R]eview under § 2254(d)(1) is 

limited to the record that was before the state court that adjudicated the claim on the merits.” Cullen v. 

Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170, 181 (2011). 

Accordingly, the motion for discovery is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 17, 2016 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01869-LJO-SKO Document 26 Filed 05/18/16 Page 2 of 2