Opinion ID: 179837
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Denial of Evidentiary Hearing and Production of Audio Tapes

Text: Finally, Curtis claims the district court abused its discretion in denying his request for an evidentiary hearing and in refusing to grant discovery concerning the audio tapes of the revocation hearing. 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, 117 S.Ct. 1793, 138 L.Ed.2d 97 (1997). If a petitioner has shown good cause for discoverythat is, has set forth good reason to believe he may be able to demonstrate he is entitled to reliefthe court may ensure adequate inquiry takes place. Id. at 908-09, 117 S.Ct. 1793. Curtis has not suggested the tapes would reveal anything the district court did not consider. He claims the tapes will show the victim's statements were admitted as hearsay without the opportunity for cross-examination, and the board relied on the alleged assault to assign an above-guidelines reconsideration date. But the district court found and we agreethat these allegations, even if true, do not entitle Curtis to relief. Therefore this decision was not an abuse of discretion.