FILED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IR C U IT August 14 , 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK 

### [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HEEL EV EN THCIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 03- 1430 4

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ TH OMA S D . ART HUR, Pe tit ion er -Appe llant, ve rs us RICHARD F. ALLEN, Co m miss ion er , A la

bam a D ep ar

tment of Co rr ec tio ns, Respondent -Appellee.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ O n Appe alf

ro m theUnit ed

S tate s D istri ct

Co urt f or the N o rth e rnD i s tr i c to f

A l ab ama

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ ON P E T I T I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG AND P E T I T I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG E N B ANC

( O pi ni on J une 21, 2006, 11 C i r . , 2006, _____ F. 3d_____) th
B E F O R E : B IR C H , B L A C K and B A R K E T T , C i rcui tJudg es.
P E R C U R IA M :We rec ognize that the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 2254(e)( 2) for obtaining a

n evidentiar

y 1 hearing a re not applicable to a petitioner’s first federal ha beas pe tition s eekingrevie w of a defa ulted claim base d on an alleg ation of ac tual innocenc e. House v. Be ll, U.S. , 126 S. C t. 2064 (Jun. 12, 2006); Sibley

v. Culli ver, 377 F .3d 1196, 1207 (11th Cir. 2004). 2 U pon cons i der at i on of t he pet i t i oner - appel l ant ’ s pet i t i on forr ehea r i ng, t he opi ni on, A r t hurv. A l l en, F. 3d , 2006 W L 1687574 ( 11 C i r . J un 21, 2006) , w e make th th e f o llo w in g m o d if

ic a tio n s . T h e d i s c u s s i o n a n d a n a l y s i s t h a tf o l l o ws t h e s e c o n d p a r a g r a p h u n d e rI V. D I SC U SSIO N , B . A r t hur ’ s C l ai m s of Except i on t o t he St atut e of Li m i t at i ons , 2. E n tit lem e n t to a H e a rin g a n d D isc o v e ry , F .3 d a t , 20 0 6 W L 1 6 7 5 7 4 , at * 1 0 , is del et ed, and the fol l ow i ng i s s ubs t i tut ed i n i t s pl ace :

G eneral l y , “[a] habea s pet i t i on er . . . i s not ent i t l ed to di scoveryas a m at t erof or di narycour s e, ” butm aybe obt ai ned upon s how i ng “good caus e, ” B r acy , 520 U
. S. at904, 117 S. C t . at1796- 97, t o bel i eve thatt he e v id e n c e so u g h t w o u ld “ ra ise [ ] su f f icie n t d o u b t ab o u t [ h is] g u iltto under m i ne conf

i dence i n t he r es ul tof t he tr i al
. ” Schl up, 517 U
. S. at317, 1 115 S. C t . at862. G ood caus e i s demonst r at ed “‘ w her e s peci fi c al l egat i ons

. . . sh o w re a so n to b e liev e th a t th e p e tit io n e r m a y , if th e f a c ts a re f u lly d e v e l o p e d , b e a b l e t o d e m o n s t r a t e t h a th e . . . i s e n t i t l e d t o r e l i e f
. ’ ” B r a c y, 52 0 U. S. a t90 8- 09 , 11 7 S. Ct
. a t17 99 ( qu ot i ng H a r r i s v. N e l s on , 39 4 U. S. 2 8 6 , 3 0 0 , 8 9 S
. C t. 1 0 8 2 , 1 0 9 1 (19 6 9 )). T h u s, g o o d ca u se f o r disco v ery cannotar i s e fr om m er e s pecul at i on. I ti s notenough, forexampl e, t o al l ege t hat“D N A t es t i ng coul d demonst r at e thatt he s ame per s on w ho r aped J udy W i ckeral s o phy s i cal l yas s aul t ed her , t hatt hi s per s on’ s bl ood w as on her bl ous e, t hathi s hai rw as found i n t he W i ckerr es i dence , t hathe w as i n J udy W i cker ’ s 1981 B ui ck R i ver i a, and thatt hi s per s on w as notM r . A r t hur
. ” A rt h u r’ s P e titio n f

o r R e h e a ri n g a t 1 4
. R ec o g n izi n g that d isco v eryca n n o t be o rde red o n the b asis o f p u re hypot hes i s , A r t hur ’ s r eques tr el i es heavi l yon t he af fi davi t s of H i gh and M el s on. B utt he cr edi bi l i t yof t hos e document s i s fundament al l yw ounded b yth e a f f ian ts’ o w n su b sta n tial re tra c tio n o f th e v e ryc o n ten t ad v a n c e d to3

supp ortA rthu r’ s new al i bi. F or t his reas on , t he af fi dav i t s do n ot furnis h good caus e t o bel i eve thatt he fa ct s , i f “f ul l ydevel oped” thr ough t he di s coverys ought , w oul d be anydi ffe r entfr om t hos e found a tt r i al
. See B racy , 52 0 U
. S
. at90 9, 11 7 S
. C t . at17 99
. T he d i stri ctcou rtdid not abuse it s d iscreti o n in d en y ing A rt h u r’s requ est fo r disco v eryan d an ev iden ti ary hear i ng. In al l otherres pects , t he p et i t i on for r eheari ng and reheari ng en b anc is DENI ED .