Opinion
DOCKET NO. 2:09 CR 00096-01
03-24-2016
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. COURTNEY D. ZENO
MAGISTRATE JUDGE KAY
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Before the court is the defendant's Motion for Release (Rec. Doc. 136) of Elizabeth Woods' Recorded Video. The Government filed an Opposition. (Rec. Doc. 137).
Rule 6(a) of the Rules Governing §2255 cases permits discovery for "good cause." "Good cause" is not demonstrated by "bald assertions" or "conclusory allegations." Stanford v. Parker, 266 F.3d 442, 460 (6th Cir.2001); see also Williams v. Bagley, 380 F.3d 932, 974 (6th Cir.2004). Rather, the requested discovery must be materially related to claims raised in the habeas petition and likely to "resolve any factual disputes that could entitle [the petitioner] to relief." Williams, 380 F.3d at 975 (quoting Stanford, 266 F.3d at 460) (internal quotation marks omitted); see Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899, 908-909 (1997) (allowing discovery relevant to "specific allegations" of fact in support of a claim of constitutional error); Post v. Bradshaw, 621 F.3d 406, 425 (6th Cir.2010) (stating that discovery provides petitioner "that extra evidence he [ ] needs to prove or strengthen his case"); Braden v. Bagley, No. 2:04-CV-842, 2007 WL 1026454, at *2 (S.D.Ohio Mar. 30, 2007) ("Rule 6's 'good cause' standard requires petitioner to at least attempt to identify what he expects to uncover through his discovery requests."). Rule 6(a) does not permit a "fishing expedition masquerading as discovery," Stanford, 266 F.3d at 460. Sample v. Colson, 958 F. Supp. 2d 865, 887 (W.D. Tenn. 2013). The trial transcript does not support the allegations in Zeno's motion.
The defendant did not file a timely petition for certiorari, therefore his §2255 is no longer viable. Having no viable §2255 motion, Zeno is not entitled to relief. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the defendant's Motion for Release (Rec. Doc. 136) IS DENIED.
Lake Charles, Louisiana, this 24 day of March, 2016.
/s/_________
PATRICIA MINALDI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE