Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02572/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02572-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Andre Matevousian
Respondent
Son Van Nguyen
Petitioner

Document Text:

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 

SON VAN NGUYEN, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

ANDRE MATEVOUSIAN, 

Respondent. 

No. 2:15-cv-2572 AC P 

ORDER 

 Petitioner, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner has also filed a separate request for leave to 

conduct discovery. ECF No. 3. 

“A habeas petitioner, unlike the usual civil litigant in federal court, is not entitled to 

discovery as a matter of ordinary course.” Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899, 904 (1997). 

However, Rule 6(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District 

Courts (Habeas Rules) provides that “[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.”1 

“Before addressing whether petitioner is entitled to discovery under this Rule to support his . . . 

 

1

 The Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts (Habeas Rules) 

are appropriately applied to proceedings undertaken pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Habeas Rule 

1(b). 

Case 2:15-cv-02572-AC Document 15 Filed 09/27/16 Page 1 of 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 

2

claim, [the court] must first identify the ‘essential elements’ of that claim.” Bracy, 520 U.S. at 

904. The court must then determine whether the petitioner has shown “good cause” for 

appropriate discovery to prove his claim. Habeas Rule 6(a). Good cause for discovery under 

Rule 6(a) is shown “‘where specific allegations before the court show reason to believe that the 

petitioner may, if the facts are fully developed, be able to demonstrate that he is . . . entitled to 

relief.’” Bracy, 520 U.S. at 908-09 (quoting Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286, 300 (1969)); Pham 

v. Terhune, 400 F.3d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 2005). 

The court has yet to screen the petition to determine whether it states a cognizable claim 

and is therefore unable, at this time, to determine whether petitioner may be entitled to relief. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion for discovery is denied without 

prejudice to renewal should the petition survive screening. 

DATED: September 26, 2016 

Case 2:15-cv-02572-AC Document 15 Filed 09/27/16 Page 2 of 2