Lopez v. Quiros et al
| Ramon Lopez |
| Angel Quiros and State of Connecticut |
| 3:2022cv00565 |
| April 20, 2022 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| Sarala V Nagala |
| Habeas Corpus (General) |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State) |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 6, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 8
ORDER denying #7 Petitioner's Motion for Leave to Request Admissions. "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). See also Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170, 181 (2011) (holding that 2254 habeas review is "limited to the record that was before the state court that adjudicated the claim on the merits."). A habeas petitioner may seek discovery under Rule 6(a) of the Federal Rules Governing 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, which 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." Fed. R. Governing 2254 Cases 6(a); see Bracy, 520 U.S. at 904. To satisfy the "good cause" standard, the petitioner must provide "specific allegations" showing "reason to believe that the petitioner may, if the facts are fully developed, be able to demonstrate that he is... entitled to relief." Ferranti v. United States, 480 F. App'x 634, 638 (2d Cir. 2012) (summary order) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Whether good cause exists to permit discovery relating to a habeas petition is ultimately a matter of the district judge's discretion. See Bracy, 520 U.S. at 909 ("Rule 6(a) makes it clear that the scope and extent of such discovery is a matter confided to the discretion of the District Court."). Petitioner seeks leave to serve requests for admission on Respondents. However, the Court cannot conclude that good cause exists to permit the requested discovery in this case. As an initial matter, Petitioner acknowledges that the primary function of his requests for admission would be to "significantly simplify the case" by establishing the facts truly in dispute. ECF No. 7 at 2. See also S.C. Johnson & Sons, Inc. v. Henkel Corp., No. 3:19CV00805 (AVC) (SALM), 2020 WL 5640528, at *2 (D. Conn. Sept. 20, 2020) ("The sole purpose of requests for admission is to streamline the presentation of evidence at trial. They eliminate the necessity of proving facts that are not in substantial dispute, thereby reducing the costs of litigation.") (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). While the Court appreciates Petitioner's interest in simplifying the matters at issue in this case, the Court's task in a habeas matter is to examine the state court's decision to decide whether it was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law or whether it was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceeding. 28 U.S.C. 2254(d). The Court's review is further limited to issues as to which Petitioner has exhausted remedies available in the state court, unless there is an absence of available or effective state court process. 28 U.S.C. 2254(b)(1). The matters as to which Petitioner seeks admissions from Respondents bear largely on issues that would have been developed in the state court record, such as evidence presented and disclosed during Petitioner's criminal proceedings. Petitioner has not demonstrated good cause for conducting additional discovery at this stage as to those issues, given that the Court's review is limited to the record that was before the state courts.Moreover, Petitioner has not specifically explained how Respondents' answers to his requests for admission will demonstrate his entitlement to habeas relief. See Hammond v. United States, No. 3:16-CV-620 (JCH), 2018 WL 2376319, at *10 (D. Conn. May 24, 2018) ("Because the court concludes that [the petitioner] has not raised allegations that, with factual development of his claims, could plausibly establish that he is entitled to relief, his request for discovery is denied."); Rios v. Bradt, No. 13-CV-4442 (MKB), 2020 WL 5709158, at *18 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 24, 2020) ("The possibility that the material Petitioner seeks will reveal information he desires is too general a request and therefore inadequate to establish that he is entitled to" discovery under Rule 6(a) or habeas relief); Pizzuti v. United States, 809 F. Supp. 2d 164, 176 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) ("A court may deny a petitioner's request for discovery where the petitioner provides no specific evidence that the requested discovery would support his habeas corpus petition.") (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Petitioner references Pham v. Terhune in support of his request, but he does not demonstrate how the discovery he seeks is "essential" for him "to develop fully his underlying claim," as was the case in Pham. 400 F.3d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 2005) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, Petitioner's Motion for Leave to Request Admissions is denied. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 5/25/2022. (Rennie, Carolyn)
|
|
Filing 7
MOTION for Leave to Request Admissions by Ramon Lopez. (Carr, Dave)
|
|
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Show Cause Response due by 7/17/2022 (Peterson, M)
|
|
Filing 6
Petitioner's Index of Opinions by Ramon Lopez (Attachments: #1 Exhibit)(Carr, Dave)
|
|
Filing 5
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE re: Habeas Petition. Show Cause Response due by July 17, 2022. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 4/22/2022. (Rennie, Carolyn)
|
|
Filing 4
ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER FOR COUNSEL - PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 4/20/2022. (Oliver, T.)
|
|
Filing 3
Prisoner E-Filing Standing Order on Prisoner Electronic Filing Program Signed by Judge Janet C. Hall on 4/20/2022. (Oliver, T.)
|
|
Filing 2
STANDING PROTECTIVE ORDER Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 4/20/2022. (Oliver, T.)
|
|
Filing 1
PRISCS - PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed by Ramon Lopez. (Attachments: #1 copy of envelope) (Oliver, T.)
|
|
Filing fee received from Ramon Lopez: $ 5.00, receipt number CTXB00012881 (Oliver, T.)
|
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Connecticut District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
