PETERS v. CAMERON
Filing
74
ORDER denying 7 Motion for Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly on 7/2/2013. A copy of the order along with a copy of the PCRA hearing transcript is being mailed via First Class Mail to Petitioner at his address of record. (tmr)
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
SHARIK L. PETERS,
Petitioner,
vs.
KENNETH R. CAMERON,
Respondent.
)
) Civil Action No. 13-52J
)
) Judge Kim R. Gibson/
) Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly
)
) Re: ECF No. 7
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Sharik L. Peters (“Petitioner”), proceeding pro se, has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus By a Person in State Custody (the “Petition”). ECF No. 1. By means of the Petition, he
seeks to challenge his state court convictions for, inter alia, Rape, Burglary, and Terroristic
Threats. Recently, he has filed in this Court a Motion for Discovery (the “Motion”), ECF No. 7.
For the reasons that follow, the Motion will be denied.
Petitioner raises three grounds in his Petition:
GROUND ONE: Whether trial counsel and appellate counsel were,
collectively, ineffective for failing to raise an objection and preserved [sic] the
err[or] of admission of hearsay testimony of expert witness for appellate review?
ECF No. 1 at 6.
GROUND TWO: Whether trial counsel was ineffective in failing to
obtain an expert to rebutt [sic] Commonwealth’s expert[’s] unreliable and
conclusory testimony.
Id., at 7.
GROUND THREE: Whether Commonwealth engaged in prosecutorial
misconduct by reference [sic, should be “referring”] to the alleged victim Lisa
Carothers, as “the victim” and “our victim[.]”
Id.
In the Motion, Petitioner requests two items of discovery. First, he seeks to compel the
District Attorney’s Office to release to him the color photos of the victim’s injuries which she
was supposed to have sustained during Petitioner’s attack. ECF No. 7 at 2, ¶7.
Secondly, he
seeks to have a transcript of the PCRA evidentiary hearing which was held on January 23, 2012.
Id., at ¶ 8. In conclusory fashion, Petitioner asserts that he “requires the underlying discovery
material to enable him to perfect and submit a habeas petition in support of the habeas petition
before the Court for relief.” Id., at ¶ 9.
Rule 6 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases addresses discovery for habeas cases
and provides in pertinent part that a Ajudge may, for good cause, authorize a party to conduct
discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and may limit the extent of discovery. . . .
A party requesting discovery must provide reasons for the request.@ As one court has explained,
A>Good cause= requires a showing of specific factual allegations which demonstrate that if fully
developed, would suggest that petitioner is entitled to habeas relief. . . . Nunez v. Greiner, 2004
WL 307264 at *2 (S.D.N.Y. February 13, 2004) (good cause not shown where petitioner had
adequate opportunity to develop record during state court hearings and proceedings).@ Crenshaw
v. Miller, No. 02-CV-6623, 2004 WL 1040852, *1 (W.D.N.Y., March 26, 2004).
Petitioner bears a heavy burden in showing entitlement to discovery.
Moreover,
Renis v. Thomas, No.
02Civ.9256, 2003 WL 22358799 at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 16, 2003) (petitioner Abears a heavy
burden in establishing a right to discovery.@).
2
Petitioner fails to meet the requisite burden in this case. With respect to the color photos
of the victim’s injuries, Petitioner fails to show “good cause,” i.e., he fails to make a “showing of
specific factual allegations which demonstrate that if fully developed, . . . that petitioner is
entitled to habeas relief.” Renis, 2003 WL 22358799 at *1. Furthermore, Petitioner fails to
relate the alleged need for the photographs to any of the three grounds he raises for relief in his
Petition.
As to the need for the PCRA hearing transcript, given that the Respondents supplied the
Court with a copy of the PCRA hearing transcript, the Court, as a matter of courtesy, is
enclosing, along with this order, a copy of the PCRA hearing transcript. Hence, insofar as the
Motion seeks discovery as to the PCRA hearing transcript, the Motion is denied as moot.
In light of the foregoing the following order is made:
AND NOW, this 2nd day of July 2013, after preliminary review of the habeas Petition,
and careful consideration of the Motion, it is hereby ORDERED that Petitioner=s Motion, ECF
No. 7, is DENIED.
In accordance with the Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and Rule 72.C.2 of
the Local Rules of Court, the parties are allowed fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order to
file an appeal to the District Judge which includes the basis for objection to this Order. Any
appeal is to be submitted to the Clerk of Court, United States District Court, 700 Grant Street,
Room 3110, Pittsburgh, PA 15219. Failure to file a timely appeal will constitute a waiver of any
appellate rights.
s/Maureen P. Kelly
Maureen P. Kelly
U.S. Magistrate Judge
3
Dated: July 2, 2013
cc:
The Honorable Kim R. Gibson
United States District Judge
Sharik L. Peters
JE-1314
SCI Benner
301 Institution Drive
Bellefonte, PA 16823
All counsel of Record via CM-ECF
4
]]>
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.
Why Is My Information Online?
