“broad-ranging preliminary inquiry is neither necessary nor appropriate in the context of a habeas corpus proceeding.”
How later courts described this case
- “broad-ranging preliminary inquiry is neither necessary nor appropriate in the context of a habeas corpus proceeding.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
DERRICK HAMPTON, )
)
Petitioner, ) Civil Action No. 2:25-CV-261
)
v. ) Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly
)
PA PAROLE BOARD, SUPERINTENDENT ) Re: ECF No. 15
BROTHERS, PA ATTORNEY GENERAL, )
)
Respondents. )
ORDER
Derrick Hampton (“Petitioner”) is a state prisoner who is seeking federal habeas relief
from the decision of Respondent Pennsylvania Parole Board denying his requests for parole.
ECF No. 3 at 5. Currently before this Court is Petitioner’s request for discovery, which was
appended to his Traverse. ECF No. 15 at 5.
Petitioner’s request for discovery relies entirely upon Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, which allows discovery of relevant, non-privileged material in a typical civil
action. Id. at 5-6 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 26). But a federal habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 is not a typical civil action, and Rule 26 does not set the standard for discovery in a
habeas case.
“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 Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286, 300 (1969) (“broad-ranging preliminary inquiry is neither
necessary nor appropriate in the context of a habeas corpus proceeding.”). Discovery is
authorized in Rule 6(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District
Courts only by leave of court upon a showing by the petitioner of “good cause,” which may be
made “where specific allegations before the court show reason to believe that the petitioner may,
if the facts are fully developed, be able to demonstrate that he is . . . entitled to relief[.]” Harris,
394 U.S. at 300. See also Bracy, 520 U.S. at 908-09.
Petitioner’s request for discovery does not address – or even recognize the existence of –
the good cause standard of Rule 6. Accordingly, it is DENIED. Denial is without prejudice to
Petitioner submitting a renewed motion for discovery, on or before July 25, 2025, in which
Petitioner demonstrates good cause under Rule 6 why the specific discovery that he seeks should
be allowed.
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.
Dated: June 25, 2025. BY THE COURT:
/s/Maureen P. Kelly
MAUREEN P. KELLY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
cc: DERRICK HAMPTON
GP-2142
SCI PINE GROVE
189 FYOCK ROAD
INDIANA, PA 15701
All counsel of record (via CM/ECF)