Summary
denying requested discovery where it was “irrelevant” to the merits of habeas claim
Summary of this case from Weston v. CapraOpinion
01 Civ. 7193 (MBM)(HBP)
June 10, 2002
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
By an undated notice of motion, petitioner herein seeks to compel discovery of certain materials. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is denied in all respects.
This is a habeas corpus proceeding in which petitioner, who pled guilty to manslaughter in the first degree and attempted robbery in the second degree, seeks to challenge his sentence as excessive and in violation of the Eighth Amendment. He currently seeks the plea and sentencing minutes of two co-defendants and documents purporting to reflect the statements of certain witnesses.
As respondent correctly points out, a habeas petitioner "is not entitled to discovery as a matter of ordinary course." Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899,904 (1997); Gonzalez v. Bennett, 00 Civ. 8401(VM), 2001 WL 1537553 at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 30, 2001). Rather, in order to be entitled to discovery, a habeas petitioner must show "good cause." Id.
On the current record, petitioner has failed to demonstrate good cause for the discovery sought. To the extent he seeks the discovery in order to establish that he has satisfied the exhaustion requirement applicable to habeas proceedings, the discovery sought is irrelevant. Whether petitioner has fairly presented all of his constitutional claims to the state courts will be demonstrated by the record of proceedings in petitioner's case. The statements of codefendants or witnesses simply have no bearing to the issue of whether petitioner has raised his constitutional claims appropriately in state court.
In addition, the evidence sought has no bearing on the merits of petitioner's claim. Sentencing is an individualized process. See United States v. Rooney, 866 F.2d 28,33 (2d Cir. 1989). Thus, the sentence received by another defendant is ordinarily irrelevant to a claim that a sentence violates the Eighth Amendment. Although one can hypothesize situations in which the sentence received by another defendant may be relevant (e.g., disparate sentencing were the only difference among defendants is race, religion, gender, etc.), there is nothing in petitioner's claim here that even remotely suggests that the sentences imposed on his co-defendants are relevant.
Accordingly, petitioner's motion to compel discovery is denied in all respects.