Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01409/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01409-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Dramaine Fletcher
Petitioner
J. Lizarraga
Respondent

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

DRAMAINE FLETCHER,

Petitioner,

v.

J. LIZARRAGA,

Respondent.

No. 2:14-cv-1409 TLN CKD P

ORDER

The habeas petition in this action has been fully submitted and is awaiting review. On 

July 6, 2016, the court denied petitioner’s two evidentiary motions without prejudice, pending 

review on the merits. (ECF No. 36.) Before the court is petitioner’s July 25, 2016 motion for 

discovery pursuant to Rule 6(a) of the Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, U.S.C. foll. 

§ 2254. (ECF No. 37.) Petitioner asks this court to order the Sacramento County Superior Court 

to assign him counsel for post-conviction DNA testing pursuant to Cal. Penal Code § 1405, or 

alternatively, to order “the federal equivalent.” (Id. at 3.) See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 

(1971) (a federal court generally will not enjoin or directly intercede in ongoing state court 

proceedings absent the most unusual circumstances). 

A federal habeas petitioner is not entitled to discovery as a matter of ordinary course. See

Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899, 904 (1997). However, Rule 6(a) of the Federal Rules 

Governing Section 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254, provides that a “judge may, for good 

cause, authorize a party to conduct discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and limit 

Case 2:14-cv-01409-TLN-CKD Document 38 Filed 08/03/16 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

the extent of discovery.” Habeas petitioners may conduct discovery only when specific 

allegations 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; Smith v. 

Mahoney, 611 F.3d 978, 996 (9th Cir. 2010). 

In Cullen v. Pinholster, 131 S. Ct. 1388 (2011), the Supreme Court held that federal 

habeas review under § 2254(d)(1) and § 2254(d)(2) is limited to the record that was before the 

state court that adjudicated the claim on the merits. Once a state court has decided the claim on 

the merits, “evidence later introduced in federal court is irrelevant.” Id. at 1400; see Wood v. 

Ryan, 693 F.3d 1104, 1122 (9th Cir. 2012) (petitioner “not entitled to an evidentiary hearing or 

additional discovery in federal court” because his claim was adjudicated on the merits under § 

2254(d)). 

Here, petitioner has not shown good cause under Rule 6(a).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT petitioner’s motion to compel discovery 

(ECF No. 37) is denied.

Dated: August 3, 2016

2 / flet1409.mtc

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:14-cv-01409-TLN-CKD Document 38 Filed 08/03/16 Page 2 of 2