good cause for habeas discovery 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].]”
How later courts described this case
- good cause for habeas discovery 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].]”
- “petitioners are not entitled to go on a fishing expedition through the government’s files in hopes of finding some damaging evidence”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MONROE WEEKLEY, III, )
)
Petitioner, ) Civil Action No. 21-660
)
v. ) District Judge J. Nicholas Ranjan
) Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly
MICHAEL CLARK, Superintendent, SCI )
Albion; and ) Re: ECF No. 171
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF )
PENNSYLVANIA, and DISTRICT )
ATTORNEY OF BEAVER COUNTY )
)
Respondents. )
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Monroe Weekley, II (“Petitioner”) is a state prisoner currently incarcerated at the at the
State Correctional Institution at Albion (“SCI-Albion”) in Albion, Pennsylvania. He seeks federal
habeas relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. For the following reasons, Petitioner’s pending
“Motion to Compel Respondents to Send All Pages of Discovery” (the “Motion to Compel”), ECF
No. 171, will be denied.
L RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The procedural history of this case is lengthy. Petitioner initiated this action by submitting
a Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (the
“Initial Petition”), which was received by this Court on May 18, 2021.1! ECF No. 1. On February
22, 2022, Petitioner submitted an Amended Petition, which in which he attached his criminal
! The Initial Petition is dated May 7, 2021. ECF No. 1 at 15. This Court presumes that this is the
date on which Petitioner placed the Initial Petition in the prison mail system. Accordingly, this
federal habeas action is deemed filed on May 7, 2021, pursuant to the prisoner mailbox rule. Burns
v. Morton, 134 F.3d 109, 113 (3d Cir. 1998).
conviction in the Court of Common Pleas of Beaver County, Pennsylvania, at Docket No. CP-04-
CR-2162-2011. ECF No. 85 at 1.
Petitioner submitted two complementary motions to compel discovery on July 13, 2022.
ECF Nos. 127 and 128. After briefing, see ECF Nos. 130, 135, the undersigned issued a 43-page
Memorandum Order on March 31, 2023, denying habeas discovery.2, ECF No. 136. After an
extension of time, ECF Nos. 137 and 138, Petitioner filed an appeal from the decision denying
discovery on May 19, 2023, ECF No. 148.
This case was stayed on Petitioner’s motion on August 28, 2023, while he attempted to
exhaust remedies in the Court of Common Pleas of Beaver County. ECF Nos. 150 and 151. On
the same date, District Judge J. Nicolas Ranjan ordered that Petitioner’s appeal from the denial of
discovery would be held in abeyance during the stay. ECF No. 152.
Petitioner moved to lift the say on September 16, 2024. ECF No. 153. That motion was
granted on October 1, 2024. ECF No. 156. Petitioner was instructed to file notice on or before
November 4, 2024, of whether he intended to pursue his appeal from the order denying discovery.
Id. at 2. Petitioner failed to do so, and he was ordered to show cause why the appeal should not
be dismissed on that basis. ECF No. 162. Petitioner once again failed to timely respond, and
Judge Ranjan dismissed the appeal with prejudice on December 9, 2024. ECF No. 168. This
Court belatedly received Petitioner’s notice that he did not wish to pursue the appeal on December
2 As part of the Memorandum Opinion, Respondents were ordered to produce a transcript of the
audio taped statement of Tamika Brown that was played for the jury during trial. ECF No. 136 at
42. The reasoning for this directive was not that Petitioner had shown good cause that he was
entitled to its discovery, but that it was required as part of the state court record, which Respondents
had been ordered to produce previously in the Service Order dated July 21, 2021. Id. at 32-33;
ECF Nos. 11 and 96.
3, 2024. ECF No. 169. It was dated December 3, 2024, and postmarked December 9, 2024. Id.
at 1; ECF No. 169-1 at 1.
In his operative Amended Petition, which was filed on November 1, 2024, Petitioner raises
several grounds for relief.
GROUND ONE: [TRIAL COUNSEL’S] FAILURE TO PRESENT FORENSIC
EVIDENCE FROM TAMIKA BROWN'S VEHICLE[.]
GROUND TWO: [TRIAL COUNSEL’S] FAILURE TO PRESENT EVIDENCE OF
BLOOD AND DNA ON ALVIN “JAY” FLOWERS’ COAT{.]
GROUND THREE: [TRIAL COUNSEL’S] FAILURE TO IMPEACH JAMES C.
STEWART AND BRADLEY KARASJ.]
GROUND FOUR: CONSTRUCTIVE DENIAL OF COUNSEL IN VIOLATION OF THE
SIXTH AMENDMENT OF THE UNITED STATES
CONSTITUTION. ]
GROUND FIVE: DENIAL OF HAVING A WITNESS TESTIFY IN FAVOR OF
PETITIONER IN VIOLATION OF THE SIXTH AND
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES
CONSTITUTION. □
GROUND SIX: INTRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE OBTAINED IN VIOLATION OF
THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE CLAUSE OF THE FOURTH
AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTIONJ. |
GROUND SEVEN: PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT IN VIOLATION OF
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES
CONSTITUTION. |
ECF No. 158 at 8-11.
With respect to Ground Seven, Petitioner alleges that the prosecution failed to correct
allegedly perjured testimony by James C. Stewart (“Stewart”) at trial, allowed Stewart and Bradley
Karas (“Karas”) to present inconsistent testimony, and failed to disclose compensation that Stewart
received from the government in the form of payment of phone bills and a reduction in sentence
for illegal firearms sales charges in exchange for Stewart’s testimony. Id. at 11. In his Traverse,
Petitioner clarifies that Stewart’s firearms charges, for which he allegedly received a sentence
reduction, was his federal case in “United States v. James C. Stewart, Criminal No. 11-47” (the
“Stewart Federal Case”). ECF No. 170 at 15.
Il. PETITIONER’S MOTION TO COMPEL
On June 13, 2025, Petitioner filed the instant Motion to Compel. ECF No. 171. Petitioner
was vague in the motion about what sort of discovery he was seeking. Instead, he merely stated
that he had sent a request for discovery to the Beaver County Clerk of Courts, who forwarded the
same to the Beaver County District Attorney’s Office, which in turn mailed something to Petitioner
via the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections’ third-party mail contractor. The contractor
returned it to the District Attorney because it was deemed to be legal mail. See, generally, ECF
Nos. 171, 171-1, and 171-2.
Respondents responded to the Motion to Compel on July 17, 2025, stating that they had
sent a compact disc containing copies of ECF Nos. 37 and 41, which were filed in the instant
federal habeas matter, and that they already had provided Petitioner with “all trial transcripts[.]”
ECF No. 173 at 3.
Petitioner replied on August 22, 2025. ECF No. 178. In his Reply, Petitioner confirmed
that he was not seeking transcripts or the copies of ECF Nos. 37 and 41 mailed by Respondents.
ECF No. 178 at 1 and 2. Instead, he asserts that:
When James Stewart and Brad Karas testified as cooperating
witnesses, the Beaver County District Attorney's Office had an
understanding of leniency that they would receive probation for
charges they faced. Respondents have a duty to disclose these
understandings. Both Stewart and Karas received probation after
testifying in Petitioner's case.
Id. at 1.
Petitioner’s discovery request — now clarified — fails for a variety of reasons. First, to the
extent that it overlaps with Petitioner’s prior motion for habeas discovery, it lacks merit for the
same reasons articulated in the Memorandum Order issued March 31, 2023, denying Petitioner the
same. ECF No. 136 at 33-35 (discussing the merits of Petitioner’s demand for various article of
evidence related to Stewart’s plea agreement in the Stewart Federal Case, “a deal for leniency,”
and evidence that the government paid Stewart’s telephone bill). In light of Judge Ranjan’s Order,
ECF No. 168, dismissing with prejudice Petitioner’s appeal from Judge Kelly’s Order denying
discovery, ECF No. 148, such a request additionally is precluded by the law of the case doctrine.
See, e.g., In re Insulin Pricing Litig., No. 2:17-CV-699, 2025 WL 2717592, at *3 (D.N.J. Sept. 24,
2025) (discussing the law of the case doctrine).
To the extent that Petitioner’s demand extends beyond what he previously has sought, he
has failed to show good cause. See R. Gov. Section 2254 Cases 6(a).
First, any understanding between the government and Stewart and/or Karas that does not
relate to the Stewart Federal Case is not an asserted basis for habeas relief. See ECF No. 158 at
11 and [.]” ECF No. 170 at 15 (discussing the particulars of Petitioner’s Brady claim).
Additionally, Petitioner has provided no specific allegations that any understanding for
leniency existed beyond the Stewart Federal Case. See Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286, 300 (1969)
(good cause for habeas discovery 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].]”). Here, Petitioner’s sparse, unsupported reference to probation
received by Stewart and Karas made in his Reply brief, see ECF No. 178 at 1, and which may or
may not refer to something other than the Stewart Federal Case, simply is insufficient to support
discovery in a federal habeas case. “[B]ald assertions and conclusory allegations do not provide
sufficient ground to warrant requiring the state to respond to discovery[.]” Zettlemoyer v.
Fulcomer, 923 F.2d 284, 301 (3d Cir. 1991); Mayberry v. Petsock, 821 F.2d 179, 185 (3d Cir.
1987) (same). Rule 6 does not authorize what is commonly referred to as “fishing expeditions,”
and it is not enough for a petitioner to speculate that the discovery he seeks might yield information
that would support one of his claims or that it would give support to anew claim. See, e.g., Deputy
v. Taylor, 19 F.3d 1485, 1493 (3d Cir. 1994) (quoting with approval Munoz v. Keane, 777 F. Supp.
282, 287 (S.D.N.Y. 1991) (“petitioners are not entitled to go on a fishing expedition through the
government’s files in hopes of finding some damaging evidence”)); see also Rega v. Wetzel, No.
13-cv-1781, 2014 WL 4079949, at *2 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 18, 2014); Tedford v. Beard, No. 09-cv-
409, 2010 WL 3885207, at *4 (W.D. Pa. Sept. 28, 2010) (“Because a petitioner in a § 2254 case
must first exhaust any claim in state court before he brings it in federal court, a federal court must,
in considering a state prisoner’s motion for discovery, take into account any lack of diligence on
the petitioner’s part in developing the record in state court.”).
WW. CONCLUSION
Petitioner failed to demonstrate entitlement to discovery in his prior discovery motions
ECF Nos. 127 and 128. They were denied. ECF Nos. 136 and 168. Petitioner likewise has failed
to show entitlement to discovery in his recent Motion to Compel. ECF No. 171. For the foregoing
reasons, the instant Motion to Compel will be denied.
An appropriate Order follows.
AND NOW, this Th day of October, 2025, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED
and DECREED that Petitioner’s Motion to Compel Respondents to Send All Pages of Discovery,
ECF No. 171, is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, 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 party opposing such an appeal may respond within fourteen (14) days
thereafter. 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.
BY THE COURT, ,
ye OY ag fh
é canes SPL 2 ey □ 53 hy f St ff ge
OC ff habitat Lith
MAUREEN KELLY ff
UNITED STATES MAGISTRAVE JUDGE
CC: Monroe Weekley, II
KS9184
SCI Albion
10745 Route 18
Albion, PA 16475
All counsel of record (via CM/ECF)