Opinion ID: 4540053
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Evidentiary Hearing and Discovery

Text: “District courts are not required to hold evidentiary hearings in collateral attacks without a firm idea of what the testimony will encompass and how it will 10 support a movant’s claim.” United States v. Cervini, 379 F.3d 987, 994, (10th Cir. 2004). Nor is “[a] habeas petitioner . . . entitled to discovery as a matter of ordinary course,” Curtis, 626 F.3d at 549 (quotations omitted). Instead, discovery is appropriate only when a petitioner “set[s] forth good reason to believe he may be able to demonstrate he is entitled to relief,” id. (quotations omitted). Because Mr. Jones was not entitled to relief, and because he has not otherwise shown that the district court abused its decision, we affirm the denial of both requests.