Bird

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JEFFREY S. NEDD, Case No. 1:22-cv-00704-HBK (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

MOTION FOR DISCOVERY

13 v. (Doc. No. 13) 14 LANDON BIRD, 15 Respondent. 16 17 18 Petitioner Jeffrey S. Need (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition 19 for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on June 10, 2022. (Doc. No. 1, “Petition”). On 20 December 5, 2022, Petitioner filed a pleading entitled “Notice and Subpoena – Questions for Oral 21 Deposition.” (Doc. No. 13). The Supreme Court has instructed federal courts to liberally 22 construe the “inartful pleading[s]” of pro se litigants. See Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 23 365 (1982). Thus, the Court construes Petitioner’s “Notice and Subpoena – Questions for Oral 24 Deposition” as a motion for discovery. 25 Although discovery is available pursuant to Rule 6 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 26 cases, it is granted only at the Court’s discretion, and upon a showing of good cause. …